Ratnayakage

*593 MEMORANDUM **

Dinesh N. Ratnayakage, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, appeals the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which concluded that he did not qualify for asylum or withholding of deportation. The facts and prior proceedings are known to the parties; they are not restated herein except as necessary.

I

We do not have jurisdiction over Ratnayakage’s assertion that he was a victim of past persecution, because he did not raise it before the BIA. Ratnayakage is required to exhaust all of his arguments by presenting them to the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c) (1992). A “failure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust remedies with respect to that question and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.” Cortez-Acosta v. INS, 234 F.3d 476, 479 (9th Cir.2000), citing Vargas v. INS, 831 F.2d 906, 907-08 (9th Cir.1987).

II

An applicant can show a well-founded fear of future persecution by adducing credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record of facts that would support a reasonable fear of persecution. Duarte de Guinac v. INS, 179 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir.1999), citing Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1428…