Case Name: Lee WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-28
Citations: 501 F. App'x 711
Docket Number: No. 11-73374
Parties: Lee WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 501
Pages: 711–712

Head Matter:
Lee WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-73374.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Dec. 28, 2012.
Lee Williams, Compton, CA, pro se.
Catherine B. Bye, Trial, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Lee Williams, a native and citizen of Barbados, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Williams' contentions regarding his eligibility for adjustment of status based on his residence in the United States and engagement to a U.S. citizen, his criminal conviction, and the denial of a continuance while Williams tried to vacate his conviction because he did not exhaust them. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 858 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the BIA).
Williams does not raise, and therefore waives, any other challenges to the BIA's order. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.