Case Name: Javad Asgharpour SARABI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-31
Citations: 330 F. App'x 140
Docket Number: No. 08-72743
Parties: Javad Asgharpour SARABI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 330
Pages: 140–141

Head Matter:
Javad Asgharpour SARABI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72743.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 29, 2009.
Filed July 31, 2009.
Javad Asgharpour Sarabi, Eloy, AZ, pro se.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Edward Earl Wiggers, Esquire, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Javad Asgharpour Sarabi, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions pro se for re view of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal, and for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence. See Delgado v. Mukasey, 563 F.3d 863, 874 (9th Cir.2009). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's determination that Sarabi's aggravated felony conviction rendered him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal because Sarabi failed to exhaust that issue. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
The agency denied CAT relief because Sarabi did not show it was more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Iran and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lemus-Galvan v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir.2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.