Case Name: Vivek SHARMA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-19
Citations: 228 F. App'x 728
Docket Number: No. 05-75091
Parties: Vivek SHARMA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 228
Pages: 728–728

Head Matter:
Vivek SHARMA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75091.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 19, 2007.
Larry F. Chin, Julian & Chin LLP, Seattle, WA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, James D. Oesterle, USSEOffice of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, 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
Vivek Sharma, his wife Reena, and their daughter Shriya, all natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") affirmance of an immigration judge's denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
The BIA denied the Sharmas' request for asylum in the exercise of its discretion. We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in doing so. See Kalubi v. Ashcroft 364 F.3d 1134, 1140 & n. 6 (9th Cir.2004).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of the Sharmas' claim for withholding of removal. See id. at 1139.
Because the Sharmas did not raise their CAT claim before the BIA, it is unexhausted and we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.