Nicolas Martinez-Vedoy 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NICOLAS MARTINEZ-VEDOY,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73105
Agency No. A092-251-384
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Nicolas Martinez-Vedoy, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming
an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
FILED
SEP 27 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-73105 2
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s removal order because Martinez-
Vedoy is removable for an aggravated felony crime of violence based on his
conviction for first-degree residential burglary in violation of California Penal
Code § 459. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d
1110, 1112 (9th Cir. 2011) (first-degree residential burglary under California Penal
Code § 459 constitutes a crime of violence that “by its nature, involves a
substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be
used in the course of committing the offense”). This conviction is final for
immigration purposes, and the validity of this conviction is not properly before us.
See Planes v. Holder, 652 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir. 2011); Ramirez-Villalpando v.
Holder, 645 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A petitioner may not collaterally
attack his state court conviction on a petition for review of a BIA decision.”).
Martinez-Vedoy does not raise a colorable constitutional claim or legal question
that would invoke our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez-Vedoy’s remaining contentions
because he failed to raise them before the BIA, and thereby failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --