
    Margarito ORIGEL-HARO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-77160.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted March 7, 2007.
    Filed March 13, 2007.
    Margarito Origel-Haro, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    David J. Zugman, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mary Jane Candaux, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., W. Manning Evans, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, WARDLAW, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Margarito Origel-Haro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order summarily affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition.

We lack jurisdiction because Origel-Haro failed to exhaust the issue of his removability under INA § 237(a)(2)(E)(i), based on a conviction for a crime of child abuse or child neglect, before the BIA. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004). While he did pursue the issue of whether his conviction was a crime of violence, such that it was an aggravated felony under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), the BIA found that Origel-Haro had not challenged the removability finding under § 237(a)(2)(E)(i). Assuming that Origel-Haro’s appeal included the question whether his conviction was a “crime of domestic violence,” under § 237(a)(2)(E)(i), it did not include the other crimes that section makes grounds for removal — a crime of child abuse or child neglect. For this reason the BIA remanded for Origel-Haro to seek relief from removal. On remand, the IJ denied Origel-Haro’s petition for cancellation and ordered him removed. That decision is not reviewable. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®.

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