Sembhi

*719 MEMORANDUM **

Sukhdev Singh Sembhi, a native and citizen of Punjab, India, seeks review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued on May 19, 2004. The order affirmed an immigration judge’s decision to deny Mr. Sembhi’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

We find that this court has no jurisdiction to review Mr. Sembhi’s appeal to the extent that he seeks a reversal of the IJ’s decision regarding CAT. Mr. Sembhi’s brief to the BIA addressed only his claims that the evidence presented to the IJ established past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution. See A.R. 5-48. These are standards for asylum and withholding of removal, not protection under CAT. Therefore, because Mr. Sembhi failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to the denial of his request for CAT protection, this court has no jurisdiction to hear that question. Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1183 (9th Cir.2001); Vargas v. United States Dept. of Immigration and Naturalization, 831 F.2d 906, 907-08 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Failure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a…

concurring:

I concur in the judgment. When an immigration judge (“IJ”) provides several grounds for an adverse credibility determination, this court may affirm on the basis of any one ground that relates to the alleged fear of persecution and goes to the heart of the asylum claim. Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th Cir.2006). Although the court’s memorandum lists several reasons to affirm the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, I would rely only on the IJ’s conclusion that Singh Sembhi *720 submitted a self-serving medical record of dubious authenticity to support his allegation of police brutality. This determination goes to the heart of Singh Sembhi’s asylum claim and provides substantial evidence to support the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. In my view, the other bases cited in the memorandum are insufficient.