
    Jose HUERTA-PENA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72195.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 16, 2013.
    Jose Huerta-Pena, San Pedro, CA, pro se.
    
      Oil, Lindsay M. Murphy, Trial, 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: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, 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 Huerta-Pena, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency correctly determined that Huerta-Pena is ineligible for cancellation of removal because his conviction under California Penal Code § 487(a) constitutes an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(a)(3), 1101(a)(43)(G) (a theft offense for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year is an aggravated felony); see also Ramirez-Villalpando, 645 F.3d at 1039 (modified categorical approach required to determine whether conviction under California Penal Code § 487(a) is an aggravated felony); United States v. Strickland, 601 F.3d 963, 968-69 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc) (docket sheet may be considered when applying the modified categorical approach).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Huerta-Pena’s contention that the agency should not have considered the felony complaint because he did not raise that issue before the agency and therefore 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     