Case Name: Lidia GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-22
Citations: 123 F. App'x 300
Docket Number: No. 04-70536
Parties: Lidia GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GRABER and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 123
Pages: 300–301

Head Matter:
Lidia GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-70536.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.
Decided Feb. 22, 2005.
Lidia Gonzalez, Desert Hot Springs, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Robbin K. Blaya, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GRABER and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Lidia Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") dismissal of her appeal of an immigration judge's order of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
Gonzalez contends that because of ineffective assistance of counsel she neglected to file an application for cancellation of removal. We lack jurisdiction to review this contention because Gonzalez failed to raise this issue before the BIA and administrative exhaustion is required for alleged errors that the administrative tribunal could remedy. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004) (recognizing that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional).
Pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 750 (9th Cir.2004), petitioner's motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the stay of removal was continued based on the government's filing of a notice of non-opposition, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, nunc pro tunc, as of the filing of the motion for stay of removal and this stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate.
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.