Case Name: Transito PORTILLO-DURAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-27
Citations: 600 F. App'x 564
Docket Number: No. 10-73309
Parties: Transito PORTILLO-DURAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 564–564

Head Matter:
Transito PORTILLO-DURAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73309.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2015
Filed April 27, 2015.
Transito Portillo-Duran, Imperial, CA, pro se.
Chief Counsel lee, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, David H. Wet-more, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Transito Portillo-Duran, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C-. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
The IJ denied Portillo-Duran's withholding of removal claim on the basis that he failed to demonstrate a nexus to race, religion, political opinion, or other protected ground. The BIA found that, in his counseled appeal, Portillo-Duran did not challenge the IJ's nexus finding. Thus, we lack jurisdiction over any challenge to the IJ's nexus finding. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.