remedies available to the alien as of right,” we lack jurisdiction to proceed. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see also Farhoud v. INS, 122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1997) (“A petitioner must exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. Failure to raise' an issue below constitutes failure to exhaust administrative remedies and depr (9th Cir.2003) (recognizing our jurisdiction to review a constitutional due process challenge to the INS’s streamlining procedures). However, there is an important qualification to this exception to the general rule requiring exhaustion: If an alleged procedural error could have been challenged before the BIA and was not, we lack jurisdiction to review it. Vargas v. U.S. Dep’t of Immigration and Naturalization, 831 F.2d 906, 908 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>) (citing Bagues-Valles v. INS, 779 F.2d 483,
recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different holding that although due process claims are generally exempt from the exhaustion requirement we do not review procedural errors correctable by the administrative tribunal holding that excessive force claims are not subject to exhaustion requirement recognizing that issue exhaustion is a mandatory although not jurisdictional requirement holding that liberty interests that are protected by procedural due process are generally limited to freedom from restraint