Weldehiwet

MEMORANDUM **

Zaid Brhane Weldehiwet petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Ap *51 peals’ (“BIA’s”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“U’s”) denial of her claim for asylum. She also seeks to introduce new evidence into the record and to designate the Netherlands as the country to which she will depart voluntarily.

Our review is limited to the administrative record. Chouchkov v. INS, 220 F.3d 1077, 1080 (9th Cir.2000); 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)(A). Accordingly, we may not consider new evidence a petitioner seeks to introduce, including the declaration and the articles Petitioner seeks to introduce in this case. Moreover, we may not consider issues not raised before the BIA. See Ortiz v. INS, 179 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.1999). Thus, we may not consider Petitioner’s request to redesignate the country to which she is to depart or to be removed.

Because the BIA conducted an independent examination of the IJ’s decision, we must limit our review to the BIA’s decision. 1 Shah v. INS, 220 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2000). We review the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. Andriasian v. INS, 180 F.3d 1033, 1040 (9th Cir.1999). We may grant a…