
    Carlos SOLIS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-71413.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 12, 2004.
    
    Decided Jan. 15, 2004.
    Carlos Solis, pro se, Waldo De Castroverde, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Office of the District Counsel, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, District Director, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Phoenix, AZ, Linda S. Wernery, Margaret Taylor, Jennifer L. Lightbody, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before BEEZER, HALL, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       John Ashcroft, Attorney General, is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption. The government’s motion to amend the docket is denied.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Solis, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision summarily affirming an immigration judge’s denial of his application for suspension of deportation. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Solis contends that he is not deportable based on his 1990 Nevada state guilty plea conviction for battery with intent to commit sexual assault because he was not advised of the deportation consequences of his plea. We lack jurisdiction to consider the issue because Solis failed to raise it on appeal to the BIA. See Vargas v. INS, 831 F.2d 906, 907-08 (9th Cir.1987) (failure to raise an issue before the BIA constitutes failure to exhaust administrative remedies and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear that issue).

We have not considered the exhibits attached to Solis’s brief because they are not part of the administrative record. See Gomez-Vigil v. INS, 990 F.2d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir.1993).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     