remaining two substantive claims can be swiftly dispatched. A claim for withholding of removal “places a more stringent burden of proof on an alien than does a counterpart claim for asylum.” Rodriguez-Ramirez, 398 F.3d at 123 (citing Makhoul v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 75, 82 (1st Cir.2004)). Consequently, the denial of the petitioner’s asylum claim perforce serves to defeat her counterpart claim for withholding of removal. The petitioner’s attempt to obtain judicial review of the denial of her claim for protection under the CAT is equally unavailing. The petitioner failed to make any developed argumentation in support of that claim before the BIA. Thus, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies bans any attempt on her part to resurrect the issue here. See Makhoul, 387 F.3d at 80 (<HOLDING>); Alvarez-Flores v. INS, 909 F.2d 1, 8 (1st
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 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 the court of appeals is without jurisdiction to consider points not squarely raised before the bia holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review legal arguments not raised before the bia