
    Seydou HAIDARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-2956-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 22, 2010.
    
      Ronald S. Salomon, New York, N.Y., for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Susan K. Houser, Senior Litigation Counsel; W. Daniel Shieh, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, ROBERT A. KATZMANN and REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Seydou Haidara, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, seeks review of a June 11, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the November 13, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Phillip Morace, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Seydou Haidara, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 11, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 13, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, where the BIA adopted the decision of the IJ and merely supplemented it, we review ( the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). We review an IJ’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009). We review de novo questions of law and the BIA’s application of law to undisputed facts. Yanqin Weng, 562 F.3d at 513.

Petitioners must 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, 119-20 (2d Cir.2007). Here, Haidara failed to challenge the IJ’s dispositive adverse credibility determination on appeal to the BIA, and the Government has raised his failure to exhaust in its brief to this Court. Accordingly, we decline to consider this dispositive finding. See id. at 124 (describing the issue exhaustion requirement as an “affirmative defense subject to waiver.”).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. 
      
      . We note that Haidara was represented by the same attorney before the BIA as well as this Court. We are not in a position to determine here whether Haidara would succeed on a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel given the extremely stringent procedural requirements of In re Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988); see also In re Compean, 25 I. & N. Dec. 1 (BIA 2009)(Lozada controls until such time, if any, as the Department of Justice establishes a superseding framework for review). But it appears to us, at minimum, that counsel fell short of his responsibilities to his client by failing to raise Hai-dara's claims before the BIA, resulting in Haidara’s failure to exhaust these claims and foreclosing our review. We therefore instruct counsel specifically to call our concerns to Haidara’s personal attention so that he is able to assess what further action he might pursue.
     