Case Name: Carlos ADAME-ZAPATA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-24
Citations: 439 F. App'x 666
Docket Number: No. 08-74736
Parties: Carlos ADAME-ZAPATA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 439
Pages: 666–667

Head Matter:
Carlos ADAME-ZAPATA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74736.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 24, 2011.
Shan Potts, Law Offices of Larry W. Smith, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil Gladys Marta Steffens Guzman, Esquire, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAS-District Coun sel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN 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
Carlos Adame-Zapata, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's (IJ) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
Adame-Zapata raises the unexhausted contention that he decided under duress not to move to suppress the Form 1-213 Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien. We decline to address this contention, which the Board also declined to consider because Adame-Zapata waived this claim by not raising it before the IJ. Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.