failed to receive notice, for it is undisputed that her former attorney received timely notice of her removal hearing, and service upon her attorney is considered to be legally sufficient. B. Because Bejar received constructive notice and no exceptional circumstance is present, we lack jurisdiction to review the legal basis for the IJ’s removal order itself. Section 1252 of the INA requires an alien to “exhaustf] all administrative remedies available to [her] as of right” prior to seeking judicial review of a final administrative removal order, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d) (2000), and we have held that an alien’s failure timely to appeal to the BIA the IJ’s denial of his motion to reopen constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Bak v. INS, 682 F.2d 441, 442-43 (3d Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); Marrero v. INS, 990 F.2d 772, 777-78 (3d
holding that plaintiff could not present his erisa estoppel claim to the district court because he did not properly exhaust it before the administrative review board holding that federal prisoners need not exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over the petition for review because the aliens did not appeal the ijs denial of their motion to reopen to the board resulting in failure to exhaust their administrative remedies holding that an aliens express waiver of his right to appeal to the bia deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider the aliens subsequent petition for review holding that failure to take available appeal to board of immigration appeals constitutes failure to exhaust administrative remedies and deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction to review