
    Maria ALCOCER ELIAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-73012.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2006.
    
    Decided March 14, 2006.
    Philippe Dwelshauvers, Fresno, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Margot L. Nadel, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before CANBY, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Alcocer Elias, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming, without opinion, an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture and cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Alcocer Elias’s contention that an immigration consultant advised her not to hire an attorney to represent her at her removal hearing, because she failed to raise that issue before the BIA. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121,1124 (9th Cir.2000).

Alcocer Elias’s contention that the BIA’s decision to streamline her case violated her due process rights is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       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.
     