Case Name: Salatiel Renel MARQUEZ-JIMENEZ; Margarita Arriaga Lopez, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-07
Citations: 285 F. App'x 362
Docket Number: No. 05-71186
Parties: Salatiel Renel MARQUEZ-JIMENEZ; Margarita Arriaga Lopez, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 285
Pages: 362–362

Head Matter:
Salatiel Renel MARQUEZ-JIMENEZ; Margarita Arriaga Lopez, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-71186.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2008.
Filed July 7, 2008.
Salatiel Renel Marquez-Jimenez, pro se.
Margarita Arriaga Lopez, pro se.
CAC-Distriet Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Aram A. Gavoor, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Patricia A. Smith, for Respondent.
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Salatiel Renel Marquez-Jimenez and Margarita Arriaga Lopez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's order denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners' ineffective assistance of counsel claim because they did not exhaust this argument before the BIA. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 218 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000). We may not review evidence that is not part of the administrative record. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).
We decline to reach those issues raised for the first time by petitioners in them reply brief. See Bazuaye v. INS, 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.