and extremely unusual hardship. See id. at 891-92. The petitioners’ due process contentions also fail because the petitioners did not show that they were prevented from reasonably presenting their case, or that the outcome of their case was prejudiced. Cf. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971-72 (9th Cir.2000) (concluding that the petitioner was prejudiced because the IJ did not allow the petitioner to testify). We lack jurisdiction over the petitioners’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the petitioners did not ex- haust their administrative remedies by first raising the claim to the BIA in a motion to reopen. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that exhaustion is jurisdictional); On-tiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED
holding that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to his claim involving a procedural error correctable by the bia holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding that claims not presented to the ij and bia should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies holding that the petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies by first presenting ineffective assistance of counsel claim to the bia