
    Silvia CLAROS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-70376
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 13, 2018 
    
    Filed February 21, 2018
    Robert G. Berke, Esquire, Attorney, Berke Law Offices, Inc., Canoga Park, CA, for Petitioner
    Drew Brinkman, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Silvia Claros, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying adjustment of status. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Claros’ unexhausted contention that she has carried her burden of showing eligibility for adjustment of status because the record of conviction is inconclusive due to the definition of “cocaine base” in California allegedly including substances that are not controlled under the Controlled Substances Act. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the agency). Accordingly, to the extent Claros requests we take judicial notice of the related documents attached to her opening brief, we deny her request. See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard for review of out-of-record evidence).

Because the court issued its decision in Almanza-Arenas v. Lynch, 815 F.3d 469 (9th Cir. 2016), Claros’ request to hold this case in abeyance pending that decision is denied as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     