Case Name: Mario CORREA-NAVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-03
Citations: 382 F. App'x 561
Docket Number: No. 07-74813
Parties: Mario CORREA-NAVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 382
Pages: 561–562

Head Matter:
Mario CORREA-NAVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74813.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 3, 2010.
Mario Correa-Nava, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
Aric Allan Anderson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mario Correa-Nava, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Correa-Nava's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel against the attorney named in his opening brief because he failed to raise these claims before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.