
    Thakor RAMESH, Petitioner v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-60877
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 27, 2007.
    Judith L. Wood, Law Firm of Judith L. Wood & Jesse Moorman, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, John S. Hogan, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, E.M. Trominski, District Director, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, Harlingen, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Thakor Ramesh petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Ramesh’s motion to reopen his deportation proceedings. In 1995, Ramesh was ordered deported in absentia after he failed to appear for a hearing. Ramesh argues that he did not receive notice of the hearing where he was ordered deported in absentia and that the lack of notice caused his deportation proceeding to violate principles of due process. The Government contends that Ramesh’s due process argument is barred from judicial review because he failed to raise it before the BIA.

An alien’s failure to exhaust an issue before the BIA is a jurisdictional bar to judicial consideration of the issue; however, the exhaustion requirement does not apply to claims of due process violations, except to the extent that such claims involve procedural errors that are correctable by the BIA. Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir.2001); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir.2004).

As Ramesh’s claim does not involve a procedural error, we have jurisdiction to review his due process argument. Roy, 389 F.3d at 137. Our review of the record and the briefs makes it clear that the lack of notification occurred solely because Ramesh gave a false name to immigration authorities; thus, no due process violation occurred. See United States v. Estrada-Trochez, 66 F.3d 733, 735-36 (5th Cir. 1995). The BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s determination that Ramesh was at fault for his failure to receive notice of the deportation hearing is supported by substantial evidence and is not arbitrary or without foundation. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir.2001); Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir.2006).

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
       Mr. Ramesh asserts that his true name is Chetan Rajendrabhai Patel. Blue brief, 2.
     