NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SARBJIT SINGH MEHROK, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 09-71604 Agency No. A079-281-708
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Im m igration Appeals Subm itted October 10, 2013 * * San Francisco, California Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Sarbjit Singh Mehrok, native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Im m igration Appeals (BIA), affirm ing the Im m igration Judge’s (IJ) denial of withholding of rem oval and protection under the Convention 

# FILED
OCT 17 2013 M OLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

* * The panel unanim ously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argum e nt. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dism iss

in part and deny in part the petition for review. 1. We lack jurisdiction to review Mehrok’s claim that his asylum application was not tim e-barred. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). The IJ and BIA denied Mehrok’s initial applications for asylum , withholding of
rem oval, and protection under CAT. In April 2005, Mehrok appealed the denial; we dism issed as unreviewable the petition as to his untim ely asylum claim but
rem anded for further proceedings his withholding of rem oval and CAT claim s. See Mehrok v. Gonzales , 125 F. App’x 163 (9th Cir. 2005). On rem a nd to the IJ, Mehrok did not re-raise the asylum issue. When appealing the IJ’s new decision as to withholding of rem oval and CAT, Mehrok re-raised the asylum issue to the BIA, but the BIA did not address it. Because Mehrok failed to raise the claim to the IJ, the issue was not properly before the BIA. See In re J-Y-C- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 260, 261 n.1 (B.I.A. 2007) (“Because the respondent failed to raise this claim below, it is not appropriate for us to consider it for the first tim e on appeal.”); see also Barron , 358 F.3d at 678. Accordingly, we dism iss the petition as to Mehrok’s asylum claim

because it is unexhausted. 2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determ ination that Mehrok failed to establish eligibility for withholding of rem oval. The governm ent rebutted
2Mehrok’s fear of future persecution with evidence from country reports. After

reviewing the country reports, the IJ m ade an individualized analysis and evaluated Mehrok’s risk of future persecution—the IJ’s denial of withholding of rem oval was adopted and affirm ed by the BIA. The BIA’s conclusion, that Mehrok does not have a risk of future persecution given that he was not even a m em ber of the Akali Dal Mann organization, is supported by the record and the evidence does not
com pel a contrary conclusion. See Lopez v. Ashcroft , 366 F.3d 799, 805 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Berroteran-M e lendez v. INS , 955 F.2d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1992). 3. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determ ination that Mehrok failed to establish eligibility for protection under CAT. The country reports indicate that Punjab police continue to target high-profile m e m bers of Akali Dal Mann. However, Mehrok is not even a m em ber. Accordingly, the evidence does not
com pel a conclusion that Mehrok would m ore likely than not be tortured if he was returned to India. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey , 542 F.3d 738, 747–48 (9th Cir. 2008). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

3