
    Jean Patrick VAVAL, a.k.a. Patrick J. Vaval, a.k.a. Patrick Sheriska, a.k.a. Jean Vavae, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-1956-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 8, 2011.
    
      Fay Yvette Parris, Esq., Law Office of Fay Yvette Parris, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Patrick James Glen, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, GERARD E. LYNCH, and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Jean Patrick Vaval, a native and citizen of Haiti, seeks review of an April 15, 2010, order of the BIA affirming immigration judge (“IJ”) Alan Page’s November 25, 2009, denial of his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jean Patrick Vaval, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. April 15, 2010), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 25, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), we lack jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having been convicted of an aggravated felony. Although we have never expressly held that this jurisdictional bar applies to claims for deferral of removal under the CAT, we have assumed, without discussion, that it is indeed applicable to such claims. See De La Rosa v. Holder, 598 F.3d 103, 107 (2d Cir.2010); see also Poole v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 259, 262 (2d Cir.2008). Thus, because Vaval was found removable as an aggravated felon, we find, as we did in Poole, that we lack jurisdiction to consider his challenge to the agency’s denial of his claim for deferral of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); see also Poole, 522 F.3d at 262.

Notwithstanding 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), we retain jurisdiction to consider any “constitutional claims or questions of law” raised in a petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Here, Vaval argues that the agency erred by failing to consider evidence in the record, specifically (1) country conditions evidence documenting human rights abuses in Haiti; (2) the testimony and supporting documentation of his expert witness, Michelle Karshan; and (3) a medical report documenting his preexisting injuries. However, we have rejected the notion that the agency must “expressly parse or refute on the record each individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the petitioner.” Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.2008); see also Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 337 n. 17 (2d Cir.2006) (presuming that the agency “has taken into account all of the evidence before [it], unless the record compellingly suggests otherwise”). In any event, both the BIA and the IJ explicitly considered the above-cited evidence in finding that Vaval failed to establish his eligibility for deferral of removal. Thus, Vaval’s challenge to the agency’s decision is “essentially a quarrel about fact-finding or the exercise of discretion” rather than a constitutional or legal claim. See Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 39 (2d Cir.2008). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider his petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D); Poole, 522 F.Sd at 262.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED. 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.  