Case Name: Adrian RAY-DURAN, AKA Adrian Duran Ray, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-20
Citations: 604 F. App'x 603
Docket Number: No. 13-70301
Parties: Adrian RAY-DURAN, AKA Adrian Duran Ray, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 604
Pages: 603–604

Head Matter:
Adrian RAY-DURAN, AKA Adrian Duran Ray, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-70301.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2015.
Decided May 20, 2015.
Adrian Duran Ray, Woodland, CA, pro se.
OIL, Sharon Michele Clay, Esquire, Trial, Justin Robert Markel, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. 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
Adrian Ray-Duran, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") order of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in determining that Ray-Duran waived any challenge to the IJ's determination that Ray-Duran was subject to the heightened standard of hardship for a waiver of inadmissability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider Ray-Duran's contentions regarding the IJ's determination that Ray-Duran was subject to the heightened standard of hardship, because he failed to raise the issue.with the BIA and therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.