
    Guillermo HERNANDEZ-CARAPIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74921.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 3, 2010.
    Howard James McClure, Esquire, Howard J. McClure, Esq., Oxnard, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Aimee J. Frederickson, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Guillermo Hernandez-Carapia, 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”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims in immigration proceedings. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not violate due process in dismissing Hernandez-Carapia’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, where Hernandez-Carapia failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), and the face of the record does not show a “clear and obvious case of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 526 (9th Cir.2000).

We lack jurisdiction over Hernandez— Carapia’s contentions regarding the IJ’s denial of his last motion to continue, as he did not challenge that decision before the BIA, where he addressed only an earlier continuance related to the reinstatement of his first wife’s 1-130 application. See Serrano v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1317, 1319 (9th Cir.2006) (no jurisdiction over issues raised for the first time on appeal to this court).

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.
     