MEMORANDUM ***

Miguel Santillan-Avilez contends the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the immigration judge (IJ) should have applied the modified categorical analysis to determine whether Santillan’s California conviction for possession of a controlled substance rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal. But Santillan never put the BIA on notice of this issue, because he never mentioned it in his notice of appeal or his brief to the BIA. See Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 492 (9th Cir. 2008). Nor did the BIA review and discuss the issue in its decision affirming the IJ’s order. Accordingly, Santillan’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies deprives us of subject-matter jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION DISMISSED.