*1 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: [*]
Mohamed Uddin, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review *2 Case: 16-60160 Document: 00513977417 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2017
No. 16-60160
of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). He challenges the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immi- gration & Nationality Act, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
The BIA concluded that the record supported an adverse credibility find- ing and that Uddin’s evidence was “insufficiently persuasive” to establish his eligibility for relief from removal. Given the inconsistencies in Uddin’s testi- monial and documentary evidence that the BIA noted, Uddin has not shown that the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. See Wang v. Holder , 569 F.3d 531, 538 (5th Cir. 2009); Efe v. Ashcroft , 293 F.3d 899, 908 (5th Cir. 2002).
As for Uddin’s claims that the BIA erred in failing to address the other grounds of denial explained by the immigration judge, those challenges have not been exhausted. See Claudio v. Holder , 601 F.3d 316, 318 (5th Cir. 2010). Uddin did not assert them to the BIA in his notice to appeal or in a subsequent brief, and the BIA did not address them. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over those unexhausted claims. See id.
The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
2
[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.