eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1031 (9th Cir.2000). Kurnia also failed to establish eligibility for relief under CAT because she failed to show it was more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Indonesia. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2)(4); Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003). Kurnia moved the BIA to reopen proceedings, in part, on the basis of her original counsel’s ineffective assistance. We lack jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen, however, because her current counsel failed to petition this Court for review of that decision. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405-06, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (<HOLDING>); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(6) (regarding
holding that if a single primary right should be invaded by two distinct and separate legal wrongs two causes of action would result holding that congress envisioned two separate petitions filed to review two separate final orders holding that the evidence supported two separate convictions and punishments for two attempted robberies of two different victims who suffered separate and distinct harms holding that two robberies of different people at the same time are two separate offenses calling for two judgments and two sentences when the defendants were convicted of taking a grandfathers wallet pistol and car and taking a grandsons fishing equipment holding unanimity requirement not violated when charge stated two separate counts with two separate and distinct offenses in each case