context: We lack jurisdiction to consider Celis-Arambula's contention that the IJ was partial and violated his right to due process because he did not raise that issue before the BIA, and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 554 F.3d 1203, 1208
citation_a.parenthetical: issues not argued in a petitioner's BIA appeal brief have not been exhausted, and the court lacks jurisdiction to consider them
citation_a.sentence: See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc) (issues not argued in a petitioner’s BIA appeal brief have not been exhausted, and the court lacks jurisdiction to consider them); see also Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir.2002) (this court may not entertain due process claims based on correctable procedural errors unless an alien first gives the BIA an opportunity to address them).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 296 F.3d 871, 877
citation_b.parenthetical: this court may not entertain due process claims based on correctable procedural errors unless an alien first gives the BIA an opportunity to address them
citation_b.sentence: See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc) (issues not argued in a petitioner’s BIA appeal brief have not been exhausted, and the court lacks jurisdiction to consider them); see also Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir.2002) (this court may not entertain due process claims based on correctable procedural errors unless an alien first gives the BIA an opportunity to address them).