NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
ALEKSANDR PETROVICH KAPTYUG, No. 10-72857
a.k.a. Aliaksandr Peter Kaptsiuh,
Agency No. A076-056-978
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Aleksandr Petrovich Kaptyug, a native and citizen of Belarus, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily
affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”) and pretermitting his applications for adjustment of status, cancellation of
removal, and asylum. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
de novo questions of law, Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
Cir. 2010), and review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Kaptyug did not
qualify for withholding of removal because he failed to establish a clear probability
of persecution on account of his religion. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1016;
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b).
The IJ correctly determined that Kaptyug was ineligible to adjust his status.
Kaptyug had previously adjusted his status to that of a lawful permanent resident
(“LPR”) and therefore cannot “re-adjust” his status to that of an LPR under
8 U.S.C. § 1159, to avoid removal. See Robleto-Pastora, 591 F.3d at 1060.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Kaptyug’s asylum, cancellation of removal
and CAT claims because he failed to exhaust his challenges to the IJ’s conclusion
that he is ineligible for these forms of relief due to his prior criminal convictions.
2 10-72857
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 DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 10-72857