22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T43f,MEMORANDUM. Tomasa Negrete De Aldaco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) deportation order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We dismiss the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to consider Negrete De Aldaco’s contentions that the IJ violated her due process rights in denying her request for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (c) (repealed 1996), because she failed to exhaust them before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (generally requiring exhaustion of claims before the agency). We also lack jurisdiction to review Neg-rete De Alco’s contentions challenging the discretionary denial of her request for section 212(c) relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B); Palma-Rojas v. INS, 244 F.3d 1191, 1192 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T471,

MEMORANDUM.

Tomasa Negrete De Aldaco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) deportation order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Negrete De Aldaco’s contentions that the IJ violated her due process rights in denying her request for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (c) (repealed 1996), because she failed to exhaust them before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (generally requiring exhaustion of claims before the agency).

We also lack jurisdiction to review Neg-rete De Alco’s contentions challenging the discretionary denial of her request for section 212(c) relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B); Palma-Rojas v. INS, 244 F.3d 1191, 1192 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.