Dalibor Ceran, a native and citizen of Croatia, has petitioned for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In his pro se brief, Ceran argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel before the immigration judge with respect to his application for relief under the CAT. Because Ceran has not exhausted this issue, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2001).

Ceran also contends that the immigration judge erred in denying his application for relief under the CAT. Ceran, however, does not base his argument on the evidence before the immigration judge. Ceran argues only that he could have obtained relief if his attorney had presented additional evidence. Ceran’s failure to properly brief the denial of CAT relief is the same as if he had not appealed that issue. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).

Ceran’s petition for review is DENIED.