
    SHU HUA GAO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-2131.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 6, 2013.
    Theodore M. Davis; Evan Goldberg, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Branch Director; Matthew A. Connelly, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    
      PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, GERARD E. LYNCH, and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Shu Hua Gao, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of an April 26, 2012, decision of the BIA, affirming a July 2, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Brigitte Laforest, denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Shu Hua, Gao, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 26, 2012), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 2, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision, including the portions not explicitly discussed by the BIA. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

Gao challenges the IJ’s admission and reliance on records from her interview before the asylum office, arguing that her interview was adversarial and coercive in violation of agency regulation and her due process rights. However, Gao fails to provide any factual basis for her conclusory assertion, and a review of the record demonstrates that the IJ did not err in admitting or relying on the interview to deny Gao relief. See Zhen Nan Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 459 F.3d 255, 268 (2d Cir.2006); see also Diallo v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 624, 631-32 (2d Cir.2006).

Gao fails to otherwise challenge the agency’s dispositive determinations that she was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal as an alien who participated in the persecution of others, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(i), 1231(b)(3)(B)®; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2), or that she failed to demonstrate her eligibility for deferral of removal under the CAT. Therefore, we need not address the agency’s alternative finding that she was not credible.

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).  