
    Jamal M. EL-ABED, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72821.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 27, 2010.
    Kaveh Ardalan, Esq., Law Offices of Kaveh Ardalan, Brea, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Esq., Gladys M. Steffens-Guzman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jamal M. El-Abed, a native of Kuwait and citizen of Jordan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 questions of law. Aguilar Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir.2008). We deny in part, and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Contrary to EI-Abed’s contention, the IJ did not rely on the conviction record of his vacated plea, but instead properly relied on the testimony of El-Abed and the government’s witness in determining that El-Abed was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C) for participating in drug trafficking. See Lopez-Umanzor v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1049, 1053-54 (9th Cir.2005) (recognizing that witness testimony may support a finding of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C)).

We lack jurisdiction to review El-Abed’s remaining contentions because he failed to exhaust them before the agency. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     