Opinion ID: 2718525
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The order of removal

Text: A petitioner may not challenge an order of removal unless he has exhausted his challenge before the BIA. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). If the petitioner has not exhausted his challenge at the agency level, we are without jurisdiction to review it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004). Brown argues to us that his waiver of appeal before the IJ was not knowing and intelligent. See United States v. Pallares-Galan, 359 F.3d 1088, 1097–98 (9th Cir. 2004). On appeal to the BIA, however, Brown did not claim that the waiver was not knowing and voluntary, and therefore we may not review this claim. Barron, 358 F.3d at 677. We should conclude that his waiver was knowing and voluntary in any event. The IJ fully informed Brown of the consequences of accepting an order of removal, Brown’s attorney warned him against waiving his right to appeal, and the IJ confirmed the waiver with both Brown and his attorney. Although Brown now claims that he only accepted the order of removal in order to expedite this court’s hearing of his citizenship claim, see Perdomo-Padilla v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir. 2003), that would not render his waiver unknowing or involuntary. 10 BROWN V. HOLDER