Henriquez

ORDER

Wilfredo A. Henriquez’s petition for review of his final order of removal is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

First, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider Henriquez’s claim that he was deprived of his right to counsel at his hearing before an immigration judge (“IJ”). Hen-riquez failed to raise his right to counsel argument to the Board of Immigration Appeals in his motion for reconsideration. Thus, he fails to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (d)(1). See Segura v. Holder, 605 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir.2010) (“We can exercise jurisdiction over a claim only if the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Second, Henriquez’s remaining contentions, that the government has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his removability and that his conviction under California Penal Code § 470(d) does not constitute an aggravated felony, both fail. At his “pleading stage” before the IJ, Hen-riquez admitted that he had been: (1) convicted of possession of methamphetamine, a violation of California Health & Safety Code § 11377(a); (2) convicted of forgery, a violation of…