
    Alexandru VARGA, Liliana Calin, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-0734-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 5, 2010.
    Zamir Iosepovici, New York, NY, for petitioners.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Lyle D. Jentzer, Senior Litigation Counsel, Zoe J. Heller, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
    PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, B.D. PARKER, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Alexandra Varga and Liliana Calin, natives and citizens of Romania, seek review of a January 30, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the May 18, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Alexandru Varga, Liliana Calin, Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/309 (BIA Jan. 30, 2009), affg Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/309 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 18, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

As an initial matter, because Petitioners failed to challenge the agency’s denial of their claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief, we deem those claims abandoned. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005).

When the BIA does not expressly “adopt” the IJ’s decision, but its brief opinion closely tracks the IJ’s reasoning, the Court may consider both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008). We review the agency’s findings of fact under the substantial evidence standard. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland See., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir.2007). Questions of law and the application of law to undisputed fact are reviewed de novo. See Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99,110 (2d Cir.2008).

As amended by the REAL ID Act, Title 8, Section 1158(b)(l)(B)(i) of the U.S.Code provides that an asylum “applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” We find no error in the agency’s conclusion that Petitioners’ asylum claim lacked a sufficient nexus to a protected ground. While Varga claimed that he was arrested and jailed without a trial, he never claimed that his arrest was on account of his Romani ethnicity. Rather, he testified that he did not know why he was arrested, and there was evidence in the record indicating that he had been charged with fraud. See Saleh v. U.S. Dept, of Justice, 962 F.2d 234, 239 (2d Cir.1992) (finding that punishment for violation of a generally applicable criminal law is not persecution). Varga never alleged that his prosecution for fraud was a pretext for persecution on account of his ethnicity. See Vumi v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 150 (2d Cir.2007). Moreover, the IJ noted that the background evidence indicated that “while there is some corruption within the judiciary in Romania, there [was] no evidence to demonstrate that citizens are convicted without trials and sentenced without trial or due process.”

[3] Petitioners also argue that the IJ erred in denying relief since Calin had testified that she was raped twice by Romanian police. However, like Varga, Calin did not assert that she was raped on account of her Romani ethnicity. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir.1999) Moreover, while Petitioners provided various background reports regarding the treatment of Romani in Romania, they failed to point to any evidence that police target and rape Romani women.

Finally, while the agency observed that “discrimination does exist against the Roma, or Gypsies, in Romania, there [was] not sufficient evidence to show that this discrimination [was] so severe or pervasive that it would amount to persecution.” See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir.2005) (holding that, absent solid support in the record for the petitioner’s assertion that he would be subjected to persecution, his fear was “speculative at best”).

■While Petitioners’ arguments offer no basis on which we are “compelled” to find — contrary to the agency — that persecution on account of Romani ancestry was or will be a “central” motive. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(l)(B)(i), 1252(b)(4)(B); cf. Osorio v. INS, 18 F.3d 1017, 1029 (2d Cir. 1994). In light of the foregoing, the agency’s denial of Petitioners’ asylum claims was proper. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(i).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.  