OPINION

Silvio De Vargas Núñez, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of a final order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss the petition for review.

De Vargas Núñez was admitted to the United States in 1986 as a lawful permanent resident. In 2002, he was convicted of-attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), fifth degree, in violation of New York Penal Law § 220.06. In 2003, he was convicted of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance (cocaine), in violation of New York Penal Law § 220.31, for which he served eighteen months in prison.

The government charged him with removability as an alien convicted of a controlled substance offense, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), and of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A). After a hearing, on July 26, 2004, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found De Vargas Núñez removable under both provisions and ordered him removed to the Dominican Republic. The IJ noted that De Vargas Núñez sought no relief from removal and appeared to be ineligible for any such relief due to his aggravated felony conviction. De Vargas Núñez appealed the decision. By order dated December 13, 2004, the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, noting that the state drug trafficking offense qualifies as an aggravated felony and that De Vargas Núñez was properly found removable as charged.

In January 2005, De Vargas Núñez filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania a pro se motion to stay removal, followed by a habeas petition (M.D.Pa. Civ. No. 05-cv- *185 00029). 1 During the pendency of his habeas petition, the REAL ID Act of 2005 took effect on May 11, 2005, which required the District Court to transfer the habeas petition to this Court to be treated as a petition for review. See Bonhometre v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 442, 446 (3d Cir. 2005). 2

We have jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or questions of law” raised in this petition for review. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). To that end, De Vargas Núñez now raises the legal question of whether his New York conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony. See Tran v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 464, 467 (3d Cir. 2005). Yet under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), we lack jurisdiction to consider this challenge because De Vargas failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Although he appealed from the IJ’s order, he did not dispute that he was convicted of an aggravated felony. Because De Vargas Núñez did not contest the issue before the BIA, the claim is unexhausted. Cf. Popal v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 249, 253 (3d Cir. 2005) (the purposes of exhaustion are met when the issues have been fairly presented to the BIA). Absent exhaustion of available administrative remedies, De Vargas Nuñez’s claim is not properly before us. 3

De Vargas Núñez also asserts that he is entitled to cancellation and deferral of removal based on his family circumstances, as well as to relief under the Convention Against Torture due to hardships he will face as a repatriate to the Dominican Republic. As with his challenge to the finding of having committed an aggravated felony, these claims are unexhausted. He did not apply for any such relief before the IJ or the BIA. 4 These claims are not properly before us, and we will not consider them in the first instance.

We add that his petition for review appears to raise claims regarding the ineffec *186 tive assistance of counsel regarding his state criminal cases and his appeal to the BIA. De Vargas Núñez appears to have abandoned these claims because he does not refer to them in his brief. We note that the matter of his New York counsel is not before us within our consideration of the petition for review of the final order of removal. Moreover, the matter of immigration counsel’s ineffectiveness appears to have no basis; the administrative record reflects that De Vargas Núñez appeared before the BIA pro se, and there is no indication that counsel had ever filed an appearance during the BIA appeal.

We will dismiss the petition for review.