of 18 months. See Mejia, 498 F.3d at 1257-58. In addition, this Court has emphasized that persecution is an extreme concept. See Zheng, 451 F.3d at 1290. Even if it is not clear whether Salcedo-Mora’s alleged mistreatment rose to the level of persecution, the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Mendoza, 327 F.3d at 1287. Because Salcedo-Mora did not establish eligibility for asylum, he also did not meet the higher burden of establishing eligibility for withholding of removal. Accordingly, we deny the petition. DENIED. 1 . We do not have jurisdiction to review the denial of CAT relief because Salcedo-Mora did not challenge the denial of CAT relief in his notice of appeal or brief to the BIA. See Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250-51 (11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). In this case, moreover, Salcedo-Mora does not
holding that the bia rule is reasonable holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims not raised below by the alien even when the bia reviews the claim sua sponte holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a claim not brought before the bia even when the bia addresses it sua sponte holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider a claim not raised before the bia even when the bia sua sponte considers the claim holding that we will not review an issue or claim that was not presented to the bia in the petitioners notice of appeal or brief to the bia even if the bia considered the issue or claim sua sponte