Gabriel Celis-Arambula 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GABRIEL CELIS-ARAMBULA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73191
Agency No. A091-506-600
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Gabriel Celis-Arambula, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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
cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
FILED
FEB 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-73191 2
We lack jurisdiction to consider Celis-Arambula’s contention that the IJ was
partial and violated his right to due process because he did not raise that issue
before the BIA, and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See
Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (issues not
argued in a petitioner’s BIA appeal brief have not been exhausted, and the court
lacks jurisdiction to consider them); see also Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 877
(9th Cir. 2002) (this court may not entertain due process claims based on
correctable procedural errors unless an alien first gives the BIA an opportunity to
address them).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --