P urs uan t t o F ede ral Ru le of App ell atePr oce dur e 4 3(c )(2 ), 1 Att orn ey Gen era l E ricH. Ho lde r J r., is au tomati cal ly sub sti tut ed forfo rme r Atto rne y G ene ral Mi cha el B. Muk ase y a s r esp ondentinth is cas e. 08 -35 32 -ag Zhang v. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A97 663 664 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY O RDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERA L RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 26 day of January, two thousand ten. th 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges . 11

_______________________________________ 12 13 HUI QIN ZHANG, aka QIN HUI, 14 Petitioner , 15 16 v. 08-3532-ag 17 NAC 18 ERIC H. HOLDER JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, 1 19 Respondent . 20

_______________________________________ 21 22 FOR PETITIONER: Hui Qin Zhang, pro se , New York, New 23 York. 242 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant 2 Attorney General, Janice K. Redfern, 3 Senior Litigation Counsel, Lindsay 4 B. Glauner, Trial Attorney, Office 5 of Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, D.C. 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 0 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 1 1 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review 1 2 is DENIED. 1 3 Hui Qin Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s 1 4 Republic of China, seeks review of a June 17, 2008 order of 1 5 the BIA, affirming the January 24, 2006 decision of 1 6 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson, which denied her 1 7 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 1 8 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hui Qin 19 Zhang , No. A97 663 664 (B.I.A. June 17, 2008), aff’gNo. A97 2 0 663 664 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 24, 2006). We assume the 2 1 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 2 2 procedural history of this case. 2 3 When the BIA agrees with the IJ’s adverse credibility 2 4 finding and emphasizes certain bases in support thereof as 2 5 well as supplements it with its own reasoning, we review the 2 6 IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. 27 Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005); Yun-Zui Guan v.While we are mindful that Zhang appears before the 2 Court pro se , even construing broadly her arguments, we cannot find that she has offered any challenge as to 3 1 Gonzales , 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the 2 agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility 3 determinations, under the substantial evidence standard. 4 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. Mukasey , 5 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008). Because Zhang proceeds pro 6 sebefore the Court, we construe her brief broadly to raise 7 the strongest arguments that it suggests. See Weixel v. 8 Board of Educ. , 287 F.3d 138, 145-46 (2d Cir. 2002). 9 As an initial matter, because Zhang failed to raise 1 0 before this Court any challenge to the agency’s denial of 1 1 her CAT claim, we deem any such argument waived. See 12 Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales , 426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d 1 3 Cir. 2005). 1 4 As to Zhang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, 1 5 we find that substantial evidence supports the agency’s 1 6 adverse credibility determination. In her brief to this 1 7 Court, Zhang fails to challenge all but one of the bases of 1 8 the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Because Zhang has 1 9 waived any challenge to these findings, they stand as proper 2 0 bases for the IJ’s credibility determination. See id. 2these findings. Cf. Weixel , 287 F.3d at 145-46. 4 1 As to the single finding Zhang does challenge, we 2 conclude that it is supported by substantial evidence. The 3 IJ reasonably found that Zhang’s testimony that her 4 neighbors intervened when Zhang’s family was attacked by her 5 fiancee and a group of men was inconsistent with her 6 sister’s letter, which stated that no one came to assist the 7 family during the attack. Zhang contends that this 8 inconsistency is due to an error in translation from the 9 Fujian dialect to Standard Chinese to English, and that, 1 0 while Zhang’s sister states in her letter “nobody came to 1 1 stop them,” she “actually means nobody can stop them.” 1 2 However, this is a different explanation than she gave 1 3 before the BIA. Accordingly, we will not consider it. See 1 4 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A). 1 5 In sum, we find no basis upon which to disturb the IJ’s 1 6 conclusion that Zhang was not credible. See Xiu Xia Lin v. 17 Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 166-67 (2d Cir. 2008). Therefore, 1 8 the IJ properly denied Zhang’s application for asylum and 1 9 withholding of removal because the only evidence that she 2 0 would be persecuted depended on her credibility. See Paul 21 v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).5

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1 2 DENIED. Having completed our review, we DISMISS the petitioner's pending motion for a stay of removal as moot. 3 4 FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 6 7 8