Case Name: Miguel HERNANDEZ-NAVARRO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-26
Citations: 401 F. App'x 208
Docket Number: No. 08-73895
Parties: Miguel HERNANDEZ-NAVARRO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 401
Pages: 208–209

Head Matter:
Miguel HERNANDEZ-NAVARRO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73895.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 26, 2010.
J. Hernando Prado, Esquire, Law Offices of J. Hernando Prado, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
Sunah Lee, Trial, Cindy S. Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel, Keith Ian Mc-Manus, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, 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
Miguel Hernandez-Navarro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's removal order. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Hernandez-Navarro's contention that he qualifies for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), as an inadmissible, rather than a removable, alien because he failed to exhaust this claim before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004); see also Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc) (when a petitioner files a brief before the BIA, the petitioner will "be deemed to have exhausted only those issues he raised and argued in his brief before the BIA") (internal citations omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.