Case Name: Parastoo MOGHADAR HAGHANI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-04
Citations: 141 F. App'x 598
Docket Number: No. 04-71346, A95-307-515
Parties: Parastoo MOGHADAR HAGHANI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 598–599

Head Matter:
Parastoo MOGHADAR HAGHANI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71346, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.
Decided Aug. 4, 2005.
Parastoo Moghadar Haghani, San Diego, CA, pro se.
CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Patricia A. Smith, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Parastoo Moghadar Haghani, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the CAT. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's determination that Moghadar Haghani's experiences did not rise to the level of persecution on account of her political opinion. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 961-62 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).
We lack jurisdiction to review the remaining issues because Moghadar Haghani failed to raise them before the BIA. See Garcia-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 1066, 1079 n. 5 (9th Cir.2004) ("Failure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust remedies with respect to that question and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter") (citations omitted).
The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).
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.