
    YI LI CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-1978-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 13, 2010.
    Vlad Kuzmin, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel; Juria L. Jones, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: WALKER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Yi Li Chen, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the April 10, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the May 31, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy K. Horn denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. In re Yi Li Chen, No. [ A XXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 10, 2009), aff'g No. [ A XXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 31, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both the IJ’s and BIA’s opinions. Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

In addition to the statutory requirement that petitioners exhaust the categories of relief they seek, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), petitioners must also raise to the BIA the specific issues they later raise in this Court. See Foster v. INS, 376 F.3d 75, 78 (2d Cir.2004). While not jurisdictional, this judicially imposed exhaustion requirement is mandatory. Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 107 n. 1 (2d Cir.2007) Because Chen failed to challenge the IJ’s adverse credibility determination in his appeal to the BIA, we decline to consider this issue. Thus, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is a valid basis for his denial of Chen’s application for asylum. Accordingly, the IJ did not err in denying Chen’s withholding of removal claim because both claims were based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 155-56 (2d Cir.2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, 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).  