Romanenko

MEMORANDUM **

Dmitry Romanenko petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ sum *148 mary affirmance of an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we deny the petition. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here except as necessary.

Romanenko first argues that the BIA and the IJ erred in fading to consider his eligibility for Convention Against Torture relief. We disagree. Romanenko, who was represented by counsel before the BIA, failed to raise a CAT claim before that tribunal and hence failed to exhaust his remedies. See Vargas v. U.S. Dept. I.N.S., 831 F.2d 906, 907-08 (9th Cir.1987). Moreover, Romanenko could have sought to reopen his case before the IJ to assert his CAT claim, see 8 C.F.R. § 208.18 (b)(2), but did not do so.

Romanenko next argues that the BIA erred in adopting the IJ’s decision without opinion. This argument is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.2003). Moreover, there is no harm to Romanenko in the BIA’s affirmance without opinion because, where the BIA does this, we review the…