
    Kassa Woldemariam LEMMA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-60448.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    DECIDED: April 27, 2004.
    Elaine Veatch Morley, Morley & Morley, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Brenda M O’Malley, US Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    John Ashcroft, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before: BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Kassa Woldemariam Lemma challenges the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his petition for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

The BIA’s finding that Lemma failed to establish eligibility for asylum is supported by the requisite substantial evidence. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir.1997); Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir.1994). And, because Lemma is not eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Faddoul, 37 F.3d at 188. Moreover, Lemma failed to exhaust his claim for relief under the CAT, therefore this court is without jurisdiction to consider it. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir.2001).

Lemma’s claim that the IJ erred in excluding evidence under 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.33 and 287.6 (certification of foreign documents and translations) fails because he has not demonstrated substantial prejudice as a result of the exclusion. See Molina v. Sewell, 983 F.2d 676, 678 (5th Cir.1993). His claim that his due process rights were violated by such exclusion under 8 C.F.R. § 287.6(b) fails for the same reason. See Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th Cir.1997).

DENIED 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     