
    YONG QIN LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-0572-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 23, 2010.
    
      Yong Qin Li, pro se, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation; Kristin K. Edison, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Yong Qin Li, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 28, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the December 14, 2006, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert D. Weisel denying Li’s application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yong Qin Li, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Jan. 28, 2009), affg No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 14, 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Jian Hui Shao v. Muka-sey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir.2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008).

I. CAT Relief

' As the government argues, although Li sets forth the standard for CAT relief in his pro se brief before this Court, even construing that brief broadly, see Steevenez v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 114, 118 (2d Cir.2007), he does not challenge the basis for the agency’s denial of his request for CAT relief. Accordingly, we deem any such challenge waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005).

II. Withholding of Removal

In the absence of past persecution, an alien can demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal if he can show that it is more likely than not he would face persecution on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2). The agency reasonably found that Li failed to make this showing, because he did not demonstrate a clear probability that authorities in China were either aware of his activities on behalf of the Chinese Democratic Party (“CDP”) or likely to become aware of such activities. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir.2008).

Before this Court, Li argues that the agency failed to appropriately analyze his claim under the framework articulated in Hongsheng Leng because the BIA “did not expressly rule whether it would be likely or not that the Chinese authorities would be aware of [his] activities.” However, the IJ explicitly addressed this issue, and under such circumstances, the BIA is not required to supplement the IJ’s analysis. See Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 523 (2d Cir.2007); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4). Similarly, Li’s argument that the IJ failed to consider evidence that he is a member of the CDP is unavailing, as the IJ assumed the credibility of Li’s testimony that Chinese officials photographed him protesting in front of the Chinese consulate. Because the agency’s finding that Li failed to meet his burden of proof for withholding of removal is supported by the record, we need not reach Li’s challenge to the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is

DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request- for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 
      
       As the government argues in its brief, Li waives any challenge to the IJ’s finding that he failed to establish either past persecution or a likelihood of future persecution based on his religion. See Yueqing, 426 F.3d at 545 n. 7. We are not persuaded, however, by the government's argument that Li failed to exhaust his challenge to the IJ's denial of relief based on his political beliefs.
     