Case Name: Gustavo Daniel MATTIELLO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-17
Citations: 96 F. App'x 550
Docket Number: No. 03-73542
Parties: Gustavo Daniel MATTIELLO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 550–551

Head Matter:
Gustavo Daniel MATTIELLO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-73542.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 10, 2004.
Decided May 17, 2004.
Michael S. Cabrera, Law Offices of Michael S. Cabrera, Huntington Park, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, NVL — District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Julia K. Doig, Esq., Song Park, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gustavo Daniel Mattiello, a native and citizen of Argentina, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision summarily affirming an immigration judge's denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. We dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Mattiello's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, his sole contention on appeal, because Mattiello failed to raise it with the BIA. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000) ('We . require an alien who argues ineffective assistance of counsel to exhaust his administrative remedies by first presenting the issue to the BIA").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.