Case Name: Ismael DIAZ HERNANDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-16
Citations: 154 F. App'x 613
Docket Number: No. 04-74663
Parties: Ismael DIAZ HERNANDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 154
Pages: 613–613

Head Matter:
Ismael DIAZ HERNANDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-74663.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 8, 2005.
Decided Nov. 16, 2005.
Victoria L. Argumedo, Esq., Law Offices of Victoria L. Argumedo, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Cindy S. Ferrier, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ismael Diaz Hernandez, his wife, Yolanda Orozco Diaz, and their children, Luis Fernando Orozco Diaz and Marcos Ismael Orozco Diaz, citizens and natives of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") orders denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioners contend the IJ erred in denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal because they have established a well-founded fear of future persecution in Mexico on the basis of an imputed political opinion. We lack jurisdiction to consider this contention because the petitioners failed to raise it before the BIA and, thus, failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. See Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir.2004).
The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).
The clerk shall amend the docket to reflect that respondent's brief filed on July 18, 2005 was served on petitioner on August 19, 2005.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.