
    Oniel Oinar BAKER, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-1312-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 24, 2010.
    
      Leon Hazany, Leon Hazany & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    James E. Grimes, Senior Litigation Counsel (Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, of counsel), Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Oniel Oinar Baker appeals from the decision of the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s order of removal. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.

Petitioner argues that the Immigration Judge and the BIA erred by not granting him a waiver of removal under section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). The government responds that Baker may not raise this argument because he failed to administratively exhaust it. The government is correct. “To preserve an issue for judicial review, the petitioner must first raise it with specificity before the BIA.” Steeve-nez v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir.2007); see also Khan v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 31, 36 (2d Cir.2007) (“[W]e are precluded from considering this challenge because [petitioner] failed to raise this issue before the BIA.”). Here, both Baker’s Notice of Appeal to the BIA and his brief before the BIA are devoid of any reference to his eligibility for a section 212(h) waiver. Baker therefore may not raise this issue before this Court.

Moreover, even if Baker had administratively exhausted his argument that he is eligible for section 212(h) relief, his argument would fail given the statutory requirements that bind us. “An alien applying for relief or protection from removal has the burden of proof to establish that the alien ... satisfies the applicable eligibility requirements.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(A). Despite being given two years to produce such evidence, Baker did not produce any evidence that his conviction was for possession of less than thirty grams of marijuana such that he was eligible for the waiver. Therefore, we have no choice but to conclude that the Immigration Judge properly found Baker ineligible for a section 212(h) waiver.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Baker’s petition for review of the BIA’s decision is hereby DENIED.  