Case Name: Joselyn Milagros GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-25
Citations: 412 F. App'x 955
Docket Number: No. 07-71801
Parties: Joselyn Milagros GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 412
Pages: 955–955

Head Matter:
Joselyn Milagros GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71801.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
Filed Jan. 25, 2011.
Joselyn Milagros Gomez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Yamileth G. Handuber, Trial, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, 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: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Joselyn Milagros Gomez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her application for voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
We reject Gomez's contention that the BIA violated due process by failing to address her fear of forced gang recruitment because she never applied for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
We lack jurisdiction to review Gomez's contentions based on the IJ's failure to advise her regarding possible eligibility for asylum because she did not exhaust the issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.