
    Raul Porfirio AMADOR-GARCIA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75598.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 30, 2009.
    Lamar Peckham, Law Office of Lamar Peckham, Santa Rosa, CA, for Petitioners.
    
      Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Margaret Kuehne Taylor, Ana T. Zablah-Monroe, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, 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

Raul Porfirio Amador-Garda, Rosa Maria Alvarez, and their son, natives and citizens of Mexico, 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 for abuse of discretion the BIA’s decision to summarily dismiss an appeal, Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Contrary to the government’s contention, the BIA’s November 17, 2006, order was the final order of removal because the BIA previously remanded for the entry of a removal order, see generally Molina-Camacho v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 937 (9th Cir.2004), overruled by Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc), and petitioners filed a timely notice of appeal from the IJ’s decision on remand, see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B). The petition for review is therefore timely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.”).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing petitioners’ appeal from an IJ’s order granting petitioners the voluntary departure relief they requested. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(C).

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ remaining contentions because petitioners did not exhaust them before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     