Case Name: Darling FENELON, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-16
Citations: 218 F. App'x 594
Docket Number: No. 05-70370
Parties: Darling FENELON, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 594–594

Head Matter:
Darling FENELON, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70370.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 8, 2007 .
Filed Jan. 16, 2007.
Carrie B. Fredericks, Sausalito, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Joan E. Smiley, Esq., Richard M. Evans, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HALL, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Darling Fenelon, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT").
We lack jurisdiction to review Fenelon's claim that the IJ erred by denying her motion for a continuance because Fenelon did not exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that exhaustion of an alleged procedural error is mandatory and jurisdictional). Accordingly, we dismiss this claim.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 over the remaining claim, and we deny it. The BIA did not violate due process by adopting and affirming the IJ's decision. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir.2003) (noting that it is not a due process violation for the BIA to adopt and affirm the IJ's decision without issuing an opinion).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; and DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.