Case Name: Hussein ABUSHINDI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-07
Citations: 355 F. App'x 988
Docket Number: No. 06-70864
Parties: Hussein ABUSHINDI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 355
Pages: 988–989

Head Matter:
Hussein ABUSHINDI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70864.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 7, 2009.
Michael Franquinha, Aguirre Law Group APC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Director U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Edward C. Durant, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Hussein Abushindi, a native and citizen of Jordan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for adjustment of status. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Abushindi's contention that the BIA acted ultra vires in its July 16, 2003 order because Abushindi failed to raise that issue before the BIA in his appeal of right and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004); see also Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir.2002) ("[W]e may not entertain due process claims based on correctable procedural errors unless the alien raised them below.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.