
    Gabriel Alejandro FUENTES-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72384.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 8, 2012.
    
    Filed Aug. 13, 2012.
    Sanjay Sobti, Esquire, Corona, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Jeffrey Bernstein, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gabriel Alejandro Fuentes-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and review de novo questions of law, including due process claims. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir.2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Fuentes-Rodriguez did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A). In addition, he was ineligible for voluntary departure due to his previous grant. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c.

The BIA did not err in concluding that Fuentes-Rodriguez did not establish a due process violation by the IJ. Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000).

We lack jurisdiction to review Fuentes-Rodriguez’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim because he failed to raise it before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (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 is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     