
    James MUMBEMBE, aka Lourenco Malungo, Nzola Bethy Mumbembe, aka Dimbo Kiakanda Malungo, Bougeoisy Mumbembe, aka Elsa Nzolamesso Malungo, Joe Mumbembe, aka Eldorado Nzolamesso Malungo, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-2454.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 10, 2015.
    Michael E. Marszalkowski, Buffalo, NY, for Petitioner.
    Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Jesse Bless, Senior Litigation Counsel; Lindsay W. Zimliki, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, RICHARD C. WESLEY, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioners seek review of a June 2, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming the June 7, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re James Mumbembe, Nzola Bethy Mumbembe, Bougeoisy Mumbembe, and Joe Mumbembe, Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/690/691 (B.I.A. June 2, 2014), aff'g Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/690/691 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo June 7, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

The agency made the following two (alternate) dispositive findings: (1) Petitioners were not credible and failed to rehabilitate their testimony with evidence corroborating their claims for relief from removal to either the Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”) or Angola; and (2) Petitioner's failed to satisfy their burden of proof regarding either country because they failed to demonstrate that they are citizens of the DRC and they did not demonstrate past persecution, a well-founded fear of persecution, or a likelihood of torture in Angola. Petitioners, through counsel, do not challenge the agency’s adverse credibility determination, which was dispositive of their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief as to both the DRC and Angola.

A petitioner’s brief to this Court must contain his “contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the [petitioner] relies.” Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal in the absence of manifest injustice. Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005) (Sotomayor, J.); LNC Invs., Inc. v. Nat’l Westminster Bank, N.J., 308 F.3d 169, 176 n. 8 (2d Cir.2002) (Sotoma-yor, J.) (“While we no doubt have the power to address an argument despite its abandonment on appeal, we ordinarily will not do so ‘unless manifest injustice otherwise would result.’ ” (quoting Anderson v. Branen, 27 F.3d 29, 30 (2d Cir.1994) (per curiam))). Because Petitioners fail to challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that they were not credible, we deem any such argument waived. See Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7.

We note that there is no merit to Petitioners’ contention that the agency erred in determining that they are citizens of Angola. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir.2006) (holding that determination of the weight of evidence is largely matter of IJ discretion); see also Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir.2007) (“Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). And they do not challenge the agency’s determination that they failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief from Angola. See Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7.

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. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); Second Circuit Local R. 34.1(b).  