
    Haurin Estuardo Roman GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73285.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 3, 2014.
    Ramin Ghashghaei, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Anthony Paul Nicastro, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Haurin Estuardo Roman Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Roman Gonzalez’s unexhausted challenges to the agency’s denial of his applications for asylum and special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).

We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1006 (9th Cir.2011), overruled on other grounds by Moncrieffe v. Holder, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 1678, 185 L.Ed.2d 727 (2013).

The BIA did not err or violate due process by limiting its review to those issues that Roman Gonzalez raised on appeal to the BIA. See Abebe, 432 F.3d at 1041 (“The BIA is presumably aware of its ability to decline to review an argument when a petitioner has not properly raised the argument on appeal to the BIA.”).

To the extent Roman Gonzalez raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, this claim must first be exhausted before the agency. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000) (“We ... require an alien who argues ineffective assistance of counsel to exhaust his administrative remedies by first presenting the issue to the BIA.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     