22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4ca,MEMORANDUM Luis Morales-Munoz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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. • In his petition for review, Morales-Munoz contests the IJ’s determination that he was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because of his prior conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3415. However, Morales-Munoz did not present this argument to the BIA and the BIA expressly held that he had waived the argument by failing to raise it in his appellate brief to the BIA. Because Morales-Munoz did not administratively exhaust the only issue he raises in his petition for review, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir.2013) (holding that a “petitioner’s failure to raise an issue before the BIA generally constitutes a failure to exhaust, thus depriving this court of jurisdiction to consider the issue”). PETITION DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4f7,

MEMORANDUM

Luis Morales-Munoz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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. •

In his petition for review, Morales-Munoz contests the IJ’s determination that he was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because of his prior conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3415. However, Morales-Munoz did not present this argument to the BIA and the BIA expressly held that he had waived the argument by failing to raise it in his appellate brief to the BIA. Because Morales-Munoz did not administratively exhaust the only issue he raises in his petition for review, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir.2013) (holding that a “petitioner’s failure to raise an issue before the BIA generally constitutes a failure to exhaust, thus depriving this court of jurisdiction to consider the issue”).

PETITION DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.