
    Rashida Najmuddin KATCHI; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72228.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 17, 2012.
    Eric Bjotvedt, Law Office of Eric Bjot-vedt, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioners.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Ann M. Welhaf, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rashida Najmuddin Katchi, Najmuddin Gulamali Katchi, and their two sons, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Petitioners contend that the IJ violated due process by relying on the Form 1-213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, to find them ineligible for the relief requested without allowing them an opportunity to address the contents of the Form. Petitioners’ contention is not supported by the record, and the proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that they were prevented from reasonably presenting their case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Najmuddin Gulamali Katchi’s claim that the contents of the Form 1-213 reflect a “misunderstanding” between him and an immigration officer, because he failed to raise that claim before either the IJ or the BIA, and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

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