Case Name: Paulino MARTINEZ MAGADAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-06
Citations: 452 F. App'x 761
Docket Number: No. 04-72326
Parties: Paulino MARTINEZ MAGADAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 452
Pages: 761–762

Head Matter:
Paulino MARTINEZ MAGADAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-72326.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Oct. 6, 2011.
Paulino Martinez Magadan, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
Joshua E. Braunstein, Assistant Director, Margot Carter, Trial, Leslie McKay, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, 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
Paulino Martinez Magadan, 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 decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez Magadan's contention that his 1990 conviction for carrying a loaded firearm was not a disqualifying offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(C) because he failed to raise it before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).
In light of our disposition, we need not address Martinez Magadan's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.