Juan Augustin Cosuelo- Quintero, a.k.a. Juan Augustin Consuelo-Quintero, a.k.a. Juan… v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN AUGUSTIN COSUELO-
QUINTERO, a.k.a. Juan Augustin
Consuelo-Quintero, a.k.a. Juan Augustine
Consuelo-Quintero,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73720
Agency No. A044-279-866
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Juan Augustin Cosuelo-Quintero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily
FILED
NOV 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-73720 2
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
summary dismissal of an appeal. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Cosuelo-
Quintero’s appeal where he did not file a separate appeal brief or statement as
indicated in his Notice of Appeal and he failed to state specific grounds for appeal
in his Notice of Appeal. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir.
2004); Garcia-Cortez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 749, 752 (9th Cir. 2004) (the BIA may
summarily dismiss an appeal if an alien submits no separate written brief or
statement to the BIA and inadequately informs the BIA of what aspects of the IJ’s
decision were allegedly incorrect and why).
We lack jurisdiction to review the underlying merits of Cosuelo-Quintero’s
appeal because he failed to raise these issues 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --