
    Uriel Rafael RAMIREZ-SOSA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72739.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 26, 2010.
    Uriel Rafael Ramirez-Sosa, Eloy, AZ, pro se.
    U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel Phoenix, Esquire, Office of the District Director U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Uriel Rafael Ramirez-Sosa, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions pro se 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, see Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Ramirez-Sosa contends the IJ violated due process by not providing him with a copy of the 1991 order granting him suspension of deportation. Contrary to Ramirez-Sosa’s contention, the proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted). Moreover, Ramirez-Sosa failed to demonstrate that correcting the IJ’s alleged error may have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See id. (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

We lack jurisdiction to review Ramirez-Sosa’s challenge to his charge of remova-bility because he failed to raise that issue before 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     