Bondi

facts, we need not recite them here.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the

agency’s legal conclusions, Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059

(9th Cir. 2017) (en banc), and for substantial evidence its factual conclusions,

Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022). Relevant here,

whether one has established “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” for

purposes of cancellation of removal is a mixed question of law and fact that we

review for substantial evidence. Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 225 (2024).

The BIA properly dismissed Rivera Ramos’s asylum, withholding of

removal, and CAT claims because he failed to meaningfully challenge the

Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of those claims on appeal. Rivera Ramos’s

cursory reference to those claims in the introduction of his brief, without more, was

insufficient to put the BIA on notice of why the IJ erred. See Alanniz v. Barr, 924

F.3d 1061, 1069 n.8 (9th Cir. 2019) (petitioner failed to exhaust CAT claim where

“[t]he CAT was mentioned only twice in [his] brief to the BIA, in the introduction

and in the conclusion,” and “[t]he brief contained no…