Case Name: Alicia Hernandez LOZANO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-31
Citations: 194 F. App'x 439
Docket Number: No. 05-73344
Parties: Alicia Hernandez LOZANO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 439–440

Head Matter:
Alicia Hernandez LOZANO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73344.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided July 31, 2006.
Evan L. Murri, Esq., Law Offices of Evan L. Murri, Pomona, CA, for Petitioner.
District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department Of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Director, Office of the District Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alicia Hernandez Lozano, 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 ("U") order denying her application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Hernandez Lozano's contention that the IJ violated her due process rights in denying her request for a continuance and failing to provide an adequate explanation of hearing procedures, because she failed to raise these issues before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (noting that due process claims that are "procedural in nature" must be exhausted).
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.