would be compelled to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed”). Hernandez-Ortiz also contends that he has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his membership of a particular social group, namely, indigenous Mayan priests. Because Hernandez-Ortiz did not present this claim to the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Cortez-Acosta v. INS, 234 F.3d 476, 480 (9th Cir.2000) (“Failure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust remedies with respect to that question and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.”) (citation omitted). Hernandez-Ortiz also challenges the legality of the BIA’s streamlining procedures. This challenge is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849-51 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). By failing to qualify for asylum, petitioner
holding that the supreme court has final appellate review of agency decisions holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review holding that a ruling of the trial court to which no error has been assigned becomes the law of the case and is not subject to review by the court of appeals holding that the bias streamlining procedure does not compromise appellate review because the ijs decision becomes the final agency action subject to direct review by the court of appeals holding the bias decision upholding the ijs finding of removability  was the final order