
    Salvador DIAZ-HILARIO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72383.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 24, 2012.
    Salvador Diaz-Hilario, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Lori Warlick, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Salvador Diaz-Hilario, 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 removal order. We dismiss the petition for review. Diaz-Hilario does not challenge the agency’s finding that he is removable for having committed a controlled substance offense. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review Diaz-Hilario’s order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

We lack jurisdiction to grant Diaz-Hilario bond or order his release. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(2) (the Attorney General may authorize release after certain procedures are followed).

We also lack jurisdiction to consider Diaz-Hilario’s unexhausted claim that he was not informed of the immigration consequences of his no-contest plea in California criminal court. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

Diaz-Hilario’s May 17, 2012, motion for a bond hearing is dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir.2011) (“If [petitioner] is dissatisfied with the BIA’s decision, he may then file a habeas petition in the district court, challenging his continued detention. The district court’s decision on the habeas petition may be appealed to this court.”).

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