
    Jorge Alberto MEDRANO-CORTEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70570.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed March 1, 2012.
    Jorge Alberto Medrano-Cortez, El Cen-tro, CA, pro se.
    Eric Warren Marsteller, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Yamileth G. Handuber, Trial, William Charles Peachey, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jorge Alberto Medrano-Cortez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction over this petition for review because Medrano-Cortez knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived 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 Estrada-Torres (with the other deportees) 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 in United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 247 F.3d 905 (9th Cir.2001); See Joo v. INS, 813 F.2d 211, 212 (9th Cir.1987) (per curiam) (“A waiver of the right to appeal is a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Medrano-Cortez’s remaining contentions.

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