Case Name: Marvin Alexander RUANO-CASTILLO, aka Marvin Ruano, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-02
Citations: 615 F. App'x 465
Docket Number: No. 12-73641
Parties: Marvin Alexander RUANO-CASTILLO, aka Marvin Ruano, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 615
Pages: 465–465

Head Matter:
Marvin Alexander RUANO-CASTILLO, aka Marvin Ruano, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-73641.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
Filed Sept. 2, 2015.
Marvin Ruano, Jerry Shapiro, Esquire, Law Offices of Jerry Shapiro, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.
Matt Crapo, 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: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, 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
Marvin Aexander Ruano-Castillo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal, and denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ruano-Castillo's sole contention, that a conviction under California Penal Code § 496(a) does not categorically fall within the definition of an aggravated felony theft offense because § 496(a) includes receiving property that has been obtained through extortion, because Ruano-Castillo failed to exhaust this contention before the agency. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien's administrative proceedings).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.