
    Armando AVALOS-YERERNAS, aka Adam Estrada, aka Israel Pardo, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73655.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2016.
    
    Filed April 26, 2016.
    Armando Avalos-Yerernas, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.
    Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, Trial, Oil, 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: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and . BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case' is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Armando Avalos-Yerernas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for 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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.2014). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We do not consider the materials Ava-los-Yerernas attached to his opening brief that are not a part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record).

Before the BIA, Avalos-Yerernas did not challenge the IJ’s determination that he was ineligible for withholding of removal and withholding of removal under the CAT because he was convicted of a particularly serious crime. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii), (iv); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2). We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider any challenge he now makes to that dispositive finding. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal under CAT because Avalos-Yerernas failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by the Mexican government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1034-35. We reject Avalos-Yerernas’s contention that the BIA erred by failing to exercise its discretion.

Finally, Avalos-Yerernas’s challenge to his continued detention is not properly before this court. See Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir.2011).

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