
    Daniel Carabes VILLALOBOS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-70823.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 6, 2006.
    
    Filed Nov. 9, 2006.
    Daniel Carabes Villalobos, Portland, OR, pro se.
    Evangelina Perez De Carabes, Portland, OR, pro se.
    Jose Manuel Carabes Perez, Portland, OR, pro se.
    Maria Guadeloupe Carabes Perez, Portland, OR, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Chief Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Nancy E. Friedman, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC., for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Daniel Carabes Villalobos, his wife Evangelina Perez De Carabes, and his children Jose Manuel Carabes Perez and Maria Guadeloupe Carabes Perez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying their applications for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo, see Martinez-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 732, 733 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The petitioners’ request for cancellation of removal was properly deemed abandoned because they did not file their applications by the deadline set by the IJ. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (authorizing the IJ to set filing deadlines and to deem waived any application not filed by the deadline).

To the extent the petitioners’ brief raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we lack jurisdiction because the petitioners failed to raise that issue 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).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED 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.
     