Case Name: Sameer Ibrahim Nemer TOMA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-25
Citations: 400 F. App'x 301
Docket Number: No. 08-72082
Parties: Sameer Ibrahim Nemer TOMA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 400
Pages: 301–302

Head Matter:
Sameer Ibrahim Nemer TOMA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72082.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 25, 2010.
Sameer Ibrahim Nemer Toma, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Esquire, Trial, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC, District Counsel Phoenix, Esquire, Office of the District Director, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, 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
Sameer Ibrahim Nemer Toma, a native and citizen of Jordan, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for adjustment of status. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 832 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency properly concluded that Toma failed to establish that he was the beneficiary of an approved visa petition: a requirement for his application for adjustment of status to proceed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(B); cf. Hernandez, 345 F.3d at 843.
We also lack jurisdiction to review Toma's unexhausted ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815-16 (9th Cir.2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.