Case Name: Carlos Roberto GUTIERREZ-PORRAS; Irma A. Gutierrez; Kristofer Gutierrez; Kenny Gutierrez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-26
Citations: 320 F. App'x 648
Docket Number: No. 06-74176
Parties: Carlos Roberto GUTIERREZ-PORRAS; Irma A. Gutierrez; Kristofer Gutierrez; Kenny Gutierrez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 648–648

Head Matter:
Carlos Roberto GUTIERREZ-PORRAS; Irma A. Gutierrez; Kristofer Gutierrez; Kenny Gutierrez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74176.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
Filed March 26, 2009.
Zachary McCready, Esquire, Law Offices of Zachary J. McCready, Los Ange-les, CA, for Petitioners.
Shahrzad Baghai, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Carlos Roberto Gutierrez-Porras, his wife and two children, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process challenges to immigration decisions. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004). We dismiss the petition for review.
Petitioners' sole contention is that the IJ denied Gutierrez-Porras due process because of an incomplete record. We lack jurisdiction to consider this claim because Gutierrez-Porras did not raise it to the BIA. See id. at 678 (requiring exhaustion of procedural due process claims).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.