Zazueta-Carrillo

MEMORANDUM *

The underlying issue that petitioner seeks to raise in this appeal is whether two Immigration and Nationality Act provisions-8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A) and 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(l)-“conflict” in a manner that permits an alien to count the period after he is served with a “notice to appear” toward the ten-year period of physical presence the alien must show to qualify for cancellation of removal. However, the petitioner, Manuel Zazueta-Car-rillo, did not make that argument before the Board of Immigration Appeals or before the immigration judge below, which defeats his claim at the outset.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (d)(1), “[a] court may review a final order of removal only if ... the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies as of right.” We have held that “[f]ailure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust remedies with respect to that *761 question and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.” Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 867 (9th Cir.2001); Vargas v. INS, 831 F.2d 906, 907-08 (9th Cir.1987). Because Zazueta-Carrillo did not make his argument presented here before the administrative tribunals, we dismiss this appeal…