
    Ernesto Alonso De SANTIAGO-MAYORGA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-72276.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2005.
    
    Decided July 15, 2005.
    Michael J. Selph, Berke Law Offices, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer Keeney, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ernesto Alonso de Santiago-Mayorga, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review whether the BIA properly dismissed petitioner’s appeal as untimely because petitioner has not challenged the BIA’s finding in his opening brief and has, therefore, waived the issue. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996).

We are also without jurisdiction to review petitioner’s contentions that the IJ erred in finding petitioner’s conviction was a crime of moral turpitude, and that he was denied due process due to ineffective assistance of counsel, because petitioner failed to raise these arguments before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see also Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that exhaustion is jurisdictional); Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims must first be exhausted before the BIA).

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.
     