
    MING XIA CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-5261-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Sept. 29, 2010.
    
      Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Nancy E. Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel; Ann Carroll Varnon, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, GUIDO CALABRESI, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Ming Xia Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 30, 2009, order of the BIA vacating immigration judge (“IJ”) Thomas J. Mulligan’s February 7, 2008, order denying Chen’s application for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief and reinstating its prior final order of removal. In re Ming Xia Chen, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 30, 2009), vacating No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 7, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

To the extent the BIA reached its own determination that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over Chen’s proceedings, the Court reviews only the decision of the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). Insofar as it agreed with the IJ’s finding that Chen failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution, the Court reviews both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008) (quoting Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.2006)). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

The BIA found that because the IJ lacked jurisdiction over Chen’s motion to reopen, the IJ had erred in reopening her proceedings to consider her successive application for relief. Accordingly, the BIA vacated the IJ’s decision and reinstated its prior order of removal. Because Chen does not raise this issue in her brief, she has waived any challenge to that disposi-tive finding. See Gui Yin Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716, 723 n. 6 (2d Cir.2007) (deeming arguments not raised before the Court abandoned).

Nevertheless, we note that the BIA did not err in finding that the IJ lacked jurisdiction to reopen Chen’s proceedings and consider her new application for relief because jurisdiction had vested with the BIA when she appealed the IJ’s decision denying her original application for relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1).

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).  