
    Regulo Vazquez GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73072.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 10, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 2, 2010.
    Regulo Vazquez Garcia, Sacramento, CA, pro se.
    Channah Farber, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Regan Hildebrand, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Regulo Vazquez Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and his request for voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency properly denied Vazquez Garcia’s applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure because the conviction documents establish that his conviction under California Health and Safety Code § 11351 constitutes a controlled substance offense and an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(8), 1229b(b)(l)(C); see also Noriega-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir.2003).

Vazquez Garcia’s contention that his conviction falls outside the ten-year period preceding his application for cancellation of removal was not presented before the BIA, and therefore is not exhausted. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (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.
     