
    Francis Andres RUIZ MAJANO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-73521.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2005.
    
    Decided June 17, 2005.
    James Phillip Vaughns, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Director, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Phoenix, AZ, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Susan Houser, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francis Andres Ruiz-Majano, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Ruiz-Majano failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of an enumerated ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Ruiz-Majano’s contention that the IJ denied him a fair hearing was not presented to the BIA. We therefore decline to address the contention. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional).

Ruiz-Majano’s challenge to the BIA’s streamlining procedure is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849-52 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     