Case Name: HUA GENG YE, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-17
Citations: 366 F. App'x 223
Docket Number: No. 09-2874-ag
Parties: HUA GENG YE, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, RICHARD C. WESLEY, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 366
Pages: 223–224

Head Matter:
HUA GENG YE, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, Respondent.
No. 09-2874-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 17, 2010.
Farah Loftus, Century City, CA, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas B. Fatouros, Senior Litigation Counsel, Karen Y. Stewart, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, RICHARD C. WESLEY, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Hua Geng Ye, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the June 5, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the September 10, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Philip Morace pretermit-ting his application for asylum and denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Hua Geng Ye, No. [ A XXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 5, 2009), ajfg No. [ A XXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 10, 2007). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
We review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's decision insofar as he pretermitted as untimely Ye's application for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). While we retain jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and "questions of law," 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Ye has raised neither. We dismiss the petition for review to that extent. We similarly dismiss the petition for review to the extent Ye challenges the denial of his request for CAT relief because he failed to exhaust that argument before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Karaj v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 113,119 (2d Cir.2006).
With respect to the agency's denial of Ye's application for withholding of removal, we find no error in its adverse credibility determination. In his brief, Ye does not challenge the IJ's findings that: (1) his non-responsive demeanor negatively impacted his credibility; (2) the absence of sufficient corroborative evidence negatively impacted his credibility; and (3) there were "significant" discrepancies both within his testimony and between his testimony and the documentary evidence that he submitted regarding the timing and his physical location when he discovered that two of his fellow Falun Gong practitioners had been arrested and detained. Because Ye does not challenge those findings, they stand as valid bases for the IJ's adverse credibility determination. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146-147 (2d Cir.2008). Although Ye challenges other of the IJ's credibility findings, the unchallenged findings alone provide substantial evidence for his adverse credibility determination. See also Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008). We will therefore not disturb the agency's denial of Ye's application for withholding of removal.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED, in part, and DISMISSED, in part. Having completed our review, we DISMISS the petitioner's pending motion for a stay of removal as moot.