
    Jose Mauricio GUEVARA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73793.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Aug. 4, 2015.
    Deborah Karapetian, Law Offices of Deborah L. Karapetian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Mauricio Guevara, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the ■ Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Mielewczyk v. Holder, 575 F.3d 992, 994 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA correctly determined that Guevara’s conviction for violating California Health and Safety Code § 11360(a) is a state law relating to a controlled substance under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) that renders him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(C). See Mielewczyk, 575 F.3d at 994-98 & n. 1 (finding the plain language of § 11352(a), a statute “largely identical” to § 11360(a), relates to a controlled substance, and “the distinction between a generic solicitation statute or one specifically aimed at controlled substances is critical when our inquiry is whether the statute of conviction is a state law relating to controlled substances”).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Guevara’s contention regarding the Federal First Offender Act because he failed to exhaust this contention before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

Guevara’s remaining contentions are without merit.

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.
     