
    Marco Tulio WONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71145.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed June 21, 2011.
    Marco Tulio Wong, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Liza Murcia, Colette Jabes Winston, Esquire, DOJ-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: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, 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

Marco Tulio Wong, 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”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We reject Wong’s contention that the IJ violated due process by not questioning him directly regarding whether he wished to withdraw his asylum application because the IJ properly relied on the statement by Wong’s attorney that Wong was withdrawing the application. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (petitioner must show error and prejudice to establish a due process violation); 8 C.F.R. § 1292.4(a).

We decline to reach Wong’s contention that the IJ failed to allow him to renew his application because he did not raise this argument before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). We lack jurisdiction over Wong’s unexhausted claim that his attorney was incompetent. See id.

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.
     