With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1288 n. 4 (noting that a failure to establish eligibility for asylum on the merits necessarily entails ineligibility for withholding of removal and CAT relief). We deny Salazar-Hinca-pie’s petition for review. PETITION DENIED. 1 . In addition to Marta Dora Salazar-Hinca-pie, her husband, Oscar Antonio Yusty, and her children, Sara Yusty and Jose Ignacio Yusty, are also involved in this appeal. 2 . As an initial matter, we lack jurisdiction to consider several issues raised by Salazar-Hin-capie. As the BIA limited its ruling to the adverse credibility determination, her argument regarding internal relocation within Colombia is not properly before us. See Shkambi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 584 F.3d 1041, 1049 n. 5 (11th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, we must decide the petition on

A: holding that we will not review portions of an ijs ruling that are not adopted by the bia
B: holding that this courts review is limited to the bia decision and the portions of the ijs decision that it expressly adopted
C: holding appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review bia order affirming ijs denial of asylum because alien did not file petition for review within 30 days of bia order as required by 8 usc  1252b1
D: holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a claim not brought before the bia even when the bia addresses it sua sponte
A.