Han Vinh Phu, a.k.a. Han Unh Phu 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HAN VINH PHU, a.k.a. Han Unh Phu,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70335
Agency No. A023-820-521
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Han Vinh Phu, a native and citizen of Vietnam, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We dismiss the petition for review.
FILED
OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70335 2
We lack jurisdiction over this petition for review because Phu made a
considered and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal. See United States v.
Estrada-Torres, 179 F.3d 776, 781 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Because the immigration
judge explained the right to appeal to [petitioner] and individually asked him
specifically if he wanted to appeal his deportation order, his waiver of his right to
appeal was ‘considered and intelligent.’”), overruled on other grounds by United
States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 247 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2001); cf. Biwot v. Gonzales, 403
F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (where a waiver of appeal was not knowing and
considered, the waiver does not strip the court of jurisdiction).
We lack jurisdiction to address Phu’s contention regarding the IJ’s
aggravated felony determination because he failed to exhaust it before the BIA.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Phu’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --