OPINION

Clement Jean Belizaire seeks review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). For the following reasons, we will deny the petition. 1

Belizaire, a native of Haiti, first entered the United States with his family as a child in 1970. His father became a naturalized United States citizen in 1974. Belizaire returned to Haiti in 1979, then re-entered the United States as a visitor in 1985 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1986. He later applied for naturalization but never completed the process.

In 1994, Belizaire was convicted in New York for attempted possession of a handgun. He was again convicted in New York for attempted possession of a revolver in 2002. Based on these two convictions, the Government charged Belizaire with being removable for having been convicted of firearms offenses and crimes involving moral turpitude. In removal proceedings, Belizaire asserted derivative citizenship through his father. He also asserted that he is a national of the United States based on his naturalization application and registration for the Selective Service. An immigration judge (IJ) rejected Belizaire’s claims of citizenship and nationality, found him removable, denied his applications for discretionary relief, and ordered him removed to Haiti. The BIA, by single member, affirmed without opinion.

Belizaire then challenged the final order of removal by filing a habeas corpus petition in the District Court. The District Court denied Belizaire’s habeas petition without conducting a hearing. Belizaire filed a timely appeal, which has been converted into a petition for review, as described previously. 2

We address first Belizaire’s assertion that he obtained derivative citizenship through his father. Under the current Child Citizenship Act (CCA), a lawful permanent resident child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen when: (1) at least one parent of the child is a citizen, whether by birth or *260 naturalization; (2) the child is under the age of eighteen; and (3) the child resides in the United States in the custody of the citizen parent. See 8 U.S.C. § 1431(a) (effective Feb. 27, 2001); Bagot v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 252, 257 n. 3 (3d Cir. 2005). The current CCA, however, does not apply retroactively to Belizaire’s case. See id. The law in effect at all relevant times required that both parents (if living and legally married) be naturalized. Id. It is undisputed that Belizaire’s parents were living and married at all relevant times, and that his mother was never naturalized. Accordingly, he did not derive citizenship from his naturalized father.

We address next Belizaire’s claim that he is a national of the United States, the issue to which he devotes most of his brief. A national is either a citizen of the United States, or “a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22). For a citizen of another country, “nothing less than citizenship will show ‘permanent allegiance to the United States.’ ” Salim v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 307, 310 (3d Cir. 2003). Because Belizaire has not completed the naturalization process, he is neither a citizen nor a national, even though he applied for naturalization and registered for the Selective Service. See id. He is instead an alien who is removable for having committed enumerated offenses. 3

Finally, we address Belizaire’s argument that he was wrongly precluded from applying for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). According to the Government, we are without jurisdiction to review Belizaire’s CAT claim because he did not present it to the BIA on appeal. We have reviewed Belizaire’s brief on appeal to the BIA, which includes a passing reference to the CAT. (Supp. App. at 27). The brief includes no argument regarding Belizaire’s entitlement to apply for CAT relief and makes no mention of any likelihood of being tortured if returned to Haiti. Under these circumstances, we agree with the Government that Belizaire did not fairly present a CAT claim to the BIA. See Bonhometre v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 442, 447 (3d Cir. 2005) (requiring alien to raise an issue to BIA in a manner that allows it to correct an error before seeking judicial review). Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to consider whether he was wrongly precluded from applying for CAT relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Bonhometre, 414 F.3d at 447.

For these reasons, we will deny Belizaire’s petition for review. We also deny the Government’s motion to transfer this matter to the Second Circuit, as explained previously. Because we find Belizaire’s arguments unavailing, we deny his motion to be returned to the United States. In light of our disposition, we deny Belizaire’s motion for appointment of counsel as moot.