
    JIN JUN YANG, aka San Sao Yang, aka Bao S. Yang, aka Sanbao Yang, aka Wenshou Guy, aka Guy Wenshou, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 13-4325 (L), 14-1824(Con).
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 2, 2015.
    
      Michael Lehach, Lehach & Filippa, LLP, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director; Kathryn L. Deangelis, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, REENA RAGGI, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Jin Jun Yang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, in the lead petition seeks review of an October 18, 2013 decision of the BIA affirming a September 28, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Jin Jun Yang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 18, 2013), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig.Ct.N.Y.C. Sept. 28, 2012). In the consolidated petition, he seeks review of the BIA’s May 1, 2014 denial of his timely motion to reopen. See In re Jin Jun Yang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 1, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Our review in the lead petition is limited to whether Yang established his eligibility for deferral of removal under the CAT, on the basis of the Chinese government’s investigation into his sister’s dealings. Yang has abandoned his claims for asylum and withholding, and his claim that his violations of China’s family planning policies provide a basis for CAT relief is unex-hausted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 107 (2d Cir.2007); Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1 (2d Cir.2005).

The agency’s denial of deferral of removal and its denial of reopening rested on factual findings, which we lack jurisdiction to review due to Yang’s criminal history. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C),(D); Ortiz-Franco v. Holder, 782 F.3d 81, 86-87 (2d Cir.2015). Yang alleges no legal errors in the agency’s initial determination that he had not established his eligibility for CAT deferral. In denying his motion to reopen, the BIA found, inter alia, that the motion did not set forth a prima facie case for relief. Yang challenges this statement as “eonelusory” and “unsupported,” but the BIA’s decision shows that it reviewed the submitted evidence, and then found both that it was not new, material, and previously unavailable, and that it failed to set forth a prima facie case for CAT relief. Id. The latter finding is dispositive and is a factual finding, which we lack jurisdiction to review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C),(D); INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988); Ortiz-Franco, 782 F.3d at 86-87.

For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).  