fear of persecution.’ ” Melecio-Saquil v. Ashcroft, 337 F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992)). And, having failed to establish her eligibility for asylum, Patel necessarily cannot satisfy the more rigorous standard for withholding of removal. Wondmneh, 361 F.3d at 1099 (“The standard for withholding removal, a clear probability of persecution, is more burdensome than a request for asylum.”). Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. 47B. 1 . The IJ’s denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture is not before this court because the BIA held the issue was not adequately raised on appeal and thus did not rule on the matter. See Doe v. Holder, 651 F.3d 824, 830 (8th Cir. 2011)
recognizing that we lack jurisdiction to consider issues not raised in the parties briefs 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 consider issues not raised at administrative level waived holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised before the bia holding that we generally may not consider issues not raised before the bia