
    Bayron CABRERA-MORALES, AKA Bayron Danilo Cabrera Morales, AKA Bayron Danilo Cabrera, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-73656
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2017
    
    Filed July 17, 2017
    Bayron Cabrera-Morales, Pro Se
    
      Craig Alan Newell, Jr., Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed, R. App. P, 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bayron Cabrera-Morales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We do not consider the materials petitioner references in his opening brief or filed separately (Docket Entry No. 21) that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even if credible, Cabrera-Morales faded to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Guatemala. See Lopez-Cardona, 662 F.3d at 1114.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Cabrera-Morales’s contentions regarding remov-ability, asylum, and procedural due process that he presents for the first time in his opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust claim in administrative proceedings below).

Finally, Cabrera-Morales’s challenge to the agency’s bond determination is not properly before us. See Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth procedure for challenging bond determinations). Thus, we dismiss Cabrera-Morales’ motion to appeal the bond decision (Docket Entry No. 25) as outside the scope of Cabrera-Morales’ petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     