
    Felix CCAIHUARI-HOYOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74383.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 9, 2010.
    David Neumeister, Judith Seeds Miller, Law Office of David Neumeister, Bakersfield, CA, for Petitioner.
    Claire Workman, Trial, Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, 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

Felix Ccaihuari-Hoyos, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo legal questions and due process challenges. Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Ccaihuari-Hoyos’s contention that the government should be estopped from placing him in removal proceedings rather than deportation proceedings is not persuasive. Ccaihuari-Hoyos has not shown that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) engaged in affirmative misconduct when it waited six years between issuing him an Order to Show Cause and lodging a Notice To Appear with the immigration court. See Cortez-Felipe v. INS, 245 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that estoppel may be warranted against the government on account of affirmative misconduct, but not negligence).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Ccaihu-ari-Hoyos’s contention regarding the IJ’s duty to hold an evidentiary hearing because he did not raise that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

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.
     