Case Name: Isabel Cristina MARMOLEJO-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-27
Citations: 397 F. App'x 345
Docket Number: No. 08-71790
Parties: Isabel Cristina MARMOLEJO-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 397
Pages: 345–346

Head Matter:
Isabel Cristina MARMOLEJO-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71790.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 27, 2010.
Carlos Alfredo Cruz, Esquire, Law Offices of Carlos A. Cruz, Ahambra, CA, for Petitioner.
District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, Aiza Bessie Ayeshmerni, Trial, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Isabel Cristina Marmolejo-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") removal order. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Marmo-lejo-Hernandez's contention that the IJ erred and violated due process by not granting a continuance because she failed to raise this contention to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (generally requiring exhaustion of claims before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.