Case Name: Abraham URIBE, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-20
Citations: 707 F. App'x 865
Docket Number: No. 14-73559
Parties: Abraham URIBE, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 865–865

Head Matter:
Abraham URIBE, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-73559
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 18, 2017
Filed December 20, 2017
Joan Ivette Del Valle, Attorney, Law Office of Joan Del Valle, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
OIL, Briena Strippoli, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, 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
Abraham Uribe, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of his motion to terminate proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Uribe's unexhausted contentions regarding the effect of California Penal Code § 1203.43 on his controlled substance conviction. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented to the agency in the alien's proceedings).
We also lack jurisdiction to review Ur-ibe's request for remand for purposes of seeking a favorable exercise of prosecuto-rial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.