Case Name: Amjad Ali RANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-24
Citations: 327 F. App'x 213
Docket Number: No. 08-2245
Parties: Amjad Ali RANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 327
Pages: 213–214

Head Matter:
Amjad Ali RANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-2245.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
June 24, 2009.
William E. Graves, Jr. and Graves & Doyle on brief for petitioner.
Surell Brady, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, and Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, on brief for respondent.
Before LYNCH, Chief Judge, SELYA and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.
Pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. has been substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as the respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Amjad Ali Rana, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of a final order of removal from the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). His sole argument in his petition is that the BIA erred in finding him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(II), which renders inadmissible certain aliens who illegally reenter the United States after being ordered removed, because he reentered the United States prior to the statute's effective date. Rana did not present this argument to the BIA.
Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite for judicial review of a final order of removal from the BIA. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Where, as here, the petitioner fails to present an argument to the BIA, he has not exhausted his administrative remedies, see, e.g., Mejia-Rodriguez v. Holder, 558 F.3d 46, 50 (1st Cir.2009); Chhay v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.2008); Sunoto v. Gonzales, 504 F.3d 56, 59 (1st Cir.2007); Un v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 205, 210-11 (1st Cir.2005), and we lack jurisdiction to decide the issue.
The petition for review is dismissed.