Case Name: Manuel OCHOA-GALAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-27
Citations: 192 F. App'x 679
Docket Number: No. 05-75284
Parties: Manuel OCHOA-GALAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 192
Pages: 679–680

Head Matter:
Manuel OCHOA-GALAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75284.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided July 27, 2006.
Manuel Ochoa-Galan, Pomona, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Susan K. Houser, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Manuel Ochoa-Galan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming an immigration judge's decision that his domestic violence conviction under CaLPenal Code § 273.5 made him ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(C) because the conviction fell within 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). He contends that his conviction did not fall within § 1227(a)(2)(E)® because he never was admitted to the United States. This contention is foreclosed by Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 649 (9th Cir.2004). Respondent contends that Ochoa-Galan failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to an argument that his conviction was not an aggravated felony. We do not read the opening brief to raise this argument.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.