
    HONGQING LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-73320.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 3, 2014.
    Hongqing Li, Alhambra, CA, pro se.
    Wendy Benner-Leon, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of. the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hongqing Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 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. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Li’s asylum claim based on the vague and equivocal testimony the agency noted, and based on Li’s failure to corroborate his address when given the opportunity. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”); see also Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1094 (9th Cir.2011) (petitioner’s corroborating evidence did not compel the finding that he met his burden of proof). We lack jurisdiction to consider Li’s contention regarding his attorney’s efforts to obtain corroborating evidence in proceedings before the IJ because Li failed to raise this issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

Li does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he waived his withholding of removal and CAT claims.

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider any ineffective assistance of counsel claim that Li raises. See Liu v. Waters, 55 F.3d 421, 426 (9th Cir.1995) (requiring exhaustion of ineffective assistance of counsel claim via a motion to reopen before the BIA).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     