Mitoyan

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Ararat Mitoyan asks us to review an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) returning him to his native Armenia. Petitioner asserts that the BIA erred in failing to consider whether his alleged mistreatment constituted torture under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and in affirming the adverse credibility finding of the immigration judge (“U”).

1. We lack jurisdiction to address Petitioner’s claim that the BIA erred when it failed to consider whether Petitioner’s alleged mistreatment by Armenian Internal Affairs officers constituted torture under the CAT. We have jurisdiction to decide an issue only if it was exhausted in the administrative proceedings below. Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir.2004). The only issues raised in Petitioner’s appeal to the BIA related to the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and denial of asylum, and those are the only issues the BIA addressed in its opinion.

2. Because the BIA explicitly adopted the IJ’s credibility analysis, citing In re Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (B.I.A.1994), we review the IJ’s adverse credibility determination as if it were that of the BIA. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083,…