Case Name: Tejinder PAL, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-23
Citations: 109 F. App'x 939
Docket Number: No. 03-71859; Agency No. A75-613-940
Parties: Tejinder PAL, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 939–940

Head Matter:
Tejinder PAL, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-71859.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2004.
Decided Sept. 23, 2004.
Vinay R. Chari, Law Office of Virender Kumar Goswami, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Coun sel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Earle B. Wilson, Hillel R. Smith, Office of Immigration Litigation, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Tejinder Pal, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("Board") dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner's challenge to the agency's adverse credibility determination because petitioner failed to exhaust this issue before the Board. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). The agency's credibility determination is dispositive of petitioner's eligibility for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.