Case Name: Jose CORTEZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-23
Citations: 221 F. App'x 655
Docket Number: No. 05-74191
Parties: Jose CORTEZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 221
Pages: 655–655

Head Matter:
Jose CORTEZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-74191.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007 .
Filed Feb. 23, 2007.
Jorge I. Rodriguez-Choi, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Little Rock, AR, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Cortez-Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision summarily affirming an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence and will uphold the IJ's decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's denial of Cortez-Hernandez's withholding of removal claim because he did not establish that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted on account of a protected ground if returned to El Salvador. INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429-30, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984).
We lack jurisdiction over Cortez-Hernandez's asylum claim, because he chose not to pursue it before the IJ, and failed to exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.