Case Name: Isaac Francisco GONZALEZ, aka Isaac Francisco Gonzales, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-22
Citations: 329 F. App'x 150
Docket Number: No. 08-70501
Parties: Isaac Francisco GONZALEZ, aka Isaac Francisco Gonzales, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 150–151

Head Matter:
Isaac Francisco GONZALEZ, aka Isaac Francisco Gonzales, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70501.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2009.
Filed July 22, 2009.
Isaac Francisco Gonzalez, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, OIL, Briena Strippoli, Esquire, John Clifford Cunningham, I, Esquire, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Esquire, Sa-rnia Naseem, Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Isaac Francisco Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order denying his applications for relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) and 1255. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner contends that the agency incorrectly categorized his kidnapping conviction as a crime involving moral turpitude and a crime of violence. Because Gonzalez did not exhaust these claims before the BIA, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.