
    Manuel Mata RAMIREZ and Yadira Mata Perez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73649.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 6, 2011.
    Roxana V. Muro, Law Offices of Roxana V. Muro, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    OIL, Patricia Ann Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Manuel Mata Ramirez and Yadira Mata Perez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim because they failed to raise it before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).

The BIA did not err in summarily dismissing petitioner’s appeal where petitioners did not meaningfully apprise the BIA of the reason underlying the appeal. See Garcia-Cortez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 749, 753 (9th Cir.2004) (notice of appeal satisfies specificity requirement if stated reasons show what aspects of IJ’s decision were allegedly incorrect and why).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.

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.
     