
    Juan Augustin COSUELO-QUINTERO, a.k.a. Juan Augustin Consuelo-Quintero, a.k.a. Juan Augustine Consuelo-Quintero, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73720.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
    
    Filed Nov. 16, 2012.
    Ramona Rae Hallam, Esquire, Counsel, Law Office of Ramona R. Hallam, Encini-tas, CA, for Petitioner.
    James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Augustin Cosuelo-Quintero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the summary dismissal of an appeal. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Cosuelo-Quintero’s appeal where he did not file a separate appeal brief or statement as indicated in his Notice of Appeal and he failed to state specific grounds for appeal in his Notice of Appeal. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir.2004); Garcia-Cortez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 749, 752 (9th Cir.2004) (the BIA may summarily dismiss an appeal if an alien submits no separate written brief or statement to the BIA and inadequately informs the BIA of what aspects of the IJ’s decision were allegedly incorrect and why).

We lack jurisdiction to review the underlying merits of Cosuelo-Quintero’s appeal because he failed to raise these issues before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).

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