Case Name: Alejandro Antoni CASTILLO-ZELAYA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-29
Citations: 397 F. App'x 418
Docket Number: No. 08-74401
Parties: Alejandro Antoni CASTILLO-ZELAYA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 397
Pages: 418–418

Head Matter:
Alejandro Antoni CASTILLO-ZELAYA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74401.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 29, 2010.
Marc Karlin, Karlin & Karlin, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Lance Lomond Jolley, Esquire, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Alejandro Antoni Castillo-Zelaya, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") removal order. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Castillo-Zelaya's contentions related to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim and whether his two controlled substance convictions render him ineligible for immigration relief because he did not raise them before the BIA, and therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930-31 (9th Cir.2004) ("A petitioner cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement by making a general challenge to the IJ's decision, but, rather, must specify which issues form the basis of the appeal.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.