
    Luis MAYANCELA-MINCHALA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-4923-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 4, 2011.
    
      Glenn T. Terk, Wethersfield, CT, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel; Nairi M. Simonian, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Present: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, ROBERT D. SACK, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Luis Mayancela-Minchala, a native and citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a September 4, 2008, decision of the BIA affirming the June 25, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Charles Adkins-Blanch, pretermitting his asylum application as untimely and denying his claims for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Luis Mayancela-Minchala, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Sept. 4, 2008), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. Hartford June 25, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008).

I. Asylum

Because Mayancela-Minchala challenges only the IJ’s factual determination that he did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances excusing the untimely filing of his asylum application, we are without jurisdiction to review the IJ’s pretermission of his asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). We dismiss the petition for review to this extent.

II. Withholding of Removal

Mayancela-Minchala waives any challenge to the IJ’s finding that he did not sufficiently corroborate his claims of past and future persecution based on his imputed political opinion. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005). That finding alone was dis-positive with regard to Mayancela-Minchala’s application for withholding of removal. See Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 196-97 (2d Cir.2009) (holding that “[w]hile consistent, detailed, and credible testimony may be sufficient to carry the alien’s burden, evidence corroborating his story, or an explanation for its absence, may be required where it would reasonably be expected”) (quoting Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 285 (2d Cir.2000)); see also Steevenez v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 114, 118 (2d Cir.2007) (denying petition for review because petitioner failed to challenge dispositive ground for relief).

In any event, the agency’s alternative findings for denying Mayancela-Minchala’s application for withholding of removal were not in error. As the agency found, Mayancela-Minchala provided no solid direct or circumstantial evidence that his father’s political activities were imputed to him and provided “one central reason” motivating his alleged persecutors. See Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 545; see also Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 344-48 (BIA 2010) (applying the “one central reason” standard to withholding of removal claims). Moreover, the agency did not err in finding that Mayancela-Minchala faded to demonstrate a likelihood of future persecution by satisfying his burden of establishing that it would not be reasonable for him to relocate. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(3)(i).

III. CAT Relief

Mayancela-Minchala does not challenge the agency’s denial of his application for CAT relief and we deem any such argument waived. See Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 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).  