Jose Ramirez Hernandez and his wife, Luis Josefina Ramos, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of their application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review. Petitioners’ sole contention on appeal is that they received ineffective assistance of counsel. We lack jurisdiction over the petitioners’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim because they did not exhaust their administrative remedies by first raising it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that exhaustion is jurisdictional); Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. *** This
holding that the petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies by first presenting ineffective assistance of counsel claim to 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 the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to his claim involving a procedural error correctable by the bia holding that claims not presented to the ij and bia should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies