
    Cornelio Cipriano ALONZO-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73436
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 20, 2016
    Pieter Daniel Speyer, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Pieter Speyer, La Jolla, CA, for Petitioner
    Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, Jason Wisecup, Daniel Shieh, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cornelio Cipriano Alonzo-Lopez, 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 (“IJ”) order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Alonzo-Lopez contends that his hearing did not comport with due process because the IJ allegedly did not make clear to him that his representative was not an attorney. Contrary to this contention, the record shows that Alonzo-Lopez received a fundamentally fair hearing that allowed him to reasonably present his case, where the IJ sufficiently questioned Alonzo-Lopez regarding potentially applicable forms of relief from removal, Alonzo-Lopez expressly .testified that he did not fear return to Guatemala, and he did not indicate' any other basis for relief in response to the IJ’s questions. See id. at 620-21 (“The BIA’s decision will be reversed on due process grounds if (1) the proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case, and (2) the alien demonstrates prejudice, which means that the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)).

To the extent petitioner raises a regulatory violation, a violation of his right to counsel, or a challenge to the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), this court lacks jurisdiction to consider these unexhausted contentions. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).

We also lack jurisdiction to consider Alonzo-Lopez’ contention that his case should be remanded for consideration of prosecu-torial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     