Case Name: Jose Emiliano Grajeda MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-18
Citations: 270 F. App'x 621
Docket Number: No. 07-73478
Parties: Jose Emiliano Grajeda MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 270
Pages: 621–622

Head Matter:
Jose Emiliano Grajeda MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73478.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2008.
Filed March 18, 2008.
Hector Ricardo Ortega, Esq., Ortega, Canossa & Associates, PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Edward E. Wiggers, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div. Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before: T.G. NELSON, TASHIMA and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing petitioner's appeal as moot because the appeal appeared to have been abandoned.
Petitioner raises no challenge to the BIA's conclusion that petitioner abandoned his appeal by failing to provide a current mailing address. Cf. Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 198, 196 (9th Cir.1992) (discussing abandonment of appeal to the BIA). Accordingly, we deny in part the petition for review.
Further, we lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner's challenge to the Immigration Judge's denial of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal because petitioner abandoned his appeal and thus, did not exhaust administrative remedies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, respondent's unopposed motion to dismiss the petition for review is granted in part.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.