Case Name: Maria J. MEJIA-ALVARADO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-16
Citations: 75 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 02-71696; Agency No. A77-494-255
Parties: Maria J. MEJIA-ALVARADO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 75
Pages: 651–651

Head Matter:
Maria J. MEJIA-ALVARADO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-71696.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
Decided Sept. 16, 2003.
Maria J. Mejia-Alvarado, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Luis E. Perez, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before PREGERSON, THOMAS 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
Maria J. Mejia-Mvarado, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") summarily affirming an immigration judge's decision finding that she waived her right to apply for asylum and withholding of removal by failing to file her applications. We dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Mejia-Mvarado contends that the Immigration Judge misinformed her of the relief that was available to her and denied her the right to counsel. We lack jurisdiction to review the alleged errors because Mejia-Mvarado never raised them with the BIA and thus failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Rashtabadi v. INS, 23 F.3d 1562, 1567 (9th Cir.1994) (holding that alleged due process violations require exhaustion).
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.