
    Rukshana Hassan Mohammed AL-AMIRI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71419.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Dec. 7, 2010.
    Filed Jan. 27, 2011.
    Garish Sarin, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lyle D. Jentzer, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Rukshana Hassan Mohammed Al-Amiri petitions for review of the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supported the conclusions that petitioner failed to establish her identity, nationality, or citizenship as required under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5)(A)(i), and that she was not a credible witness. There was persuasive evidence that Al-Amiri entered the United States in 1991, a year before she claimed, as an Indian citizen with an Indian passport, contrary to her contention that she entered as an Iranian national.

Al-Amiri’s confidentiality claim also fails. Under 8 C.F.R. § 208.6(a), claimants are protected from “disclos[ure]” of any “[i]nformation contained in or pertaining to any asylum application.” Nothing in the record indicates that it was revealed that Al-Amiri had applied for asylum in this country. Showing the photograph and verifying birth certificates did not disclose that fact or otherwise violate the regulation.

We lack jurisdiction over any claim by Al-Amiri for CAT relief because she did not exhaust the claim before the agency. Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1199 n. 1 (9th Cir.2004) (citing Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1099 (9th Cir.2000)).

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     