Case Name: Jose Jesus Moreno SERNA; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-25
Citations: 89 F. App'x 88
Docket Number: No. 02-72316; Agency Nos. A75-598-535, A76-715-297
Parties: Jose Jesus Moreno SERNA; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 89
Pages: 88–88

Head Matter:
Jose Jesus Moreno SERNA; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-72316.
Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 2004.
Decided Feb. 25, 2004.
Carlos Vellanoweth, Esq., John Wolfgang Gehart, Vellanoweth & Gehart, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Cindy S. Ferrier, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Jesus Moreno-Serna, and his wife, Norma G. Borja-Lozano, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge's ("U") decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss in part and deny in part.
We lack jurisdiction over petitioner's contention that the IJ should have sua sponte raised ineffective assistance of counsel because petitioners failed to administratively exhaust this claim with the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Hernandez-Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78, 2004 WL 235480 at *2-3 (9th Cir.2003).
Petitioner's contention that the BIA's summary affirmance procedure violates due process is foreclosed by our decision in Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.