
    Santos Gonzalez MARTINEZ, AKA Ananias Mateo Mateo, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-70881
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 20, 2017
    Carolina Gomez, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Carolina Gomez, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Robert Michael Stalzer, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice,' Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Santos Gonzalez Martinez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) or(ier dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) removal order. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order dismissing Gonzalez Martinez’s appeal from an IJ’s removal order because he waived his right of appeal, and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Joo v. INS, 813 F.2d 211, 212 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A waiver of the right to appeal is a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”).

To the extent Gonzalez Martinez contends the waiver was invalid because his former counsel failed to ask if he feared persecution or harm in Guatemala, we lack jurisdiction to consider this unexhausted contention. See Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A petitioner cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement by making a general challenge to the IJ’s decision, but, rather, must specify which issues form the basis of the appeal.”); Brown v. Holder, 763 F.3d 1141, 1146 (9th Cir. 2014) (requiring petitioner to exhaust challenge to waiver of appeal).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Gonzalez Martinez’s request for prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     