
    Ramesh PATEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72300.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 18, 2011.
    Ramesh Patel, St. Louis, MO, pro se.
    OIL, Matthew Allan Spurlock, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Yamileth G. Handuber, Trial, William Charles Peachey, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: HUG, SKOPIL, and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ramesh Patel (“Patel”) is a native and citizen of India who is on his second journey through the American immigration system. His first journey ended when he withdrew his asylum application and accepted voluntary departure. He now appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) refusal to allow him to adjust his status because he failed to depart during his allotted period. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny his petition for review.

“Where the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law, appellate review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Chawla v. Holder, 599 F.3d 998, 1000 (9th Cir.2010). The court reviews the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir.2009).

If Patel did not depart within the specified period, he is ineligible to adjust his status. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d). Patel bears “the burden of proof to establish that ... [he] satisfies the applicable eligibility requirements; and ... that [he] merits a favorable exercise of discretion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(A). Here, Patel offered unverified copies of (1) a receipt for an airline ticket, (2) a stamp in a passport, and (3) a customs receipt from India. The Government countered with (1) a statement from the airline that Patel did not travel on their airplane; and (2) a final administrative decision that Patel breached his voluntary departure bond by not leaving during the allotted time.

We conclude Patel’s evidence could support but does not compel “any reasonable adjudicator” to decide in his favor. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Therefore, the BIA’s factual finding that Patel did not comply with the terms of his voluntary departure is conclusive. Id.

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Earlier in these proceedings, Patel also sought asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, but he has waived those claims before this court. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 n. 1 (9th Cir.2010) (citing Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th Cir.1996)).
     