Tretiakova

MEMORANDUM **

Vantsetta Ivanovna Tretiakova, a native of Russia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, which adopted and affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We dismiss in part, deny in part, and grant in part.

We lack jurisdiction to address petitioner’s due process claim regarding the IJ’s decision because the claim was not exhausted below. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-678 (9th Cir.2004).

We have jurisdiction over petitioner’s remaining claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo questions of law. Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. at 1039 .

We reject petitioner’s claims that the BIA’s decision does not comport with due process requirements. See Alaelua v. INS, 45 F.3d 1379, 1382 (9th Cir.1995) (stating that the BIA does not violate due process when it adopts the IJ decision).

Substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s and BIA’s conclusions that the petitioner failed to meet the nexus requirement for asylum eligibility. Petitioner established a nexus,…