Petitioner Amjad Ali Rana, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of a final order of removal from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). His sole argument in his petition is that the BIA erred in finding him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(II), which renders inadmissible certain aliens who illegally reenter the United States after being ordered removed, because he reentered the United States prior to the statute’s effective date. Rana did not present this argument to the BIA.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite for judicial review of a final *214 order of removal from the BIA. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Where, as here, the petitioner fails to present an argument to the BIA, he has not exhausted his administrative remedies, see, e.g., Mejia-Rodriguez v. Holder, 558 F.3d 46, 50 (1st Cir. 2009); Chhay v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2008); Sunoto v. Gonzales, 504 F.3d 56, 59 (1st Cir. 2007); Un v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 205, 210-11 (1st Cir. 2005), and we lack jurisdiction to decide the issue.

The petition for review is dismissed.