
    TUAN LIN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-2873.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 30, 2015.
    Lewis G. Hu, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Edward J. Duffy, Senior Litiga-, tion Counsel; Katherine A. Smith, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: WALKER, JR., REENA RAGGI and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Tuan Lin, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a July 2, 2013, decision of the BIA affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) October 28, 2011, denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Tuan Lin, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. July 2, 2013), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig.Ct.N.Y. City Oct. 28, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

The resolution of Lin’s petition rests largely on our scope of review. Where the BIA modifies the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision as modified, i.e., minus the findings not addressed or affirmed by the BIA. Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). The only issues reached by the BIA were the lack of corroboration supporting Lin’s testimony and whether Lin was deprived of due process during his hearing. Lin references the corroboration finding once, stating the IJ’s “blanket rejection of all Petitioner’s written evidence[]” deprived him of due process, but provides no further explanation or specific arguments regarding corroboration. Consequently, any challenges to the specific corroboration findings are forfeited. Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005) (providing that issues not sufficiently addressed in the briefs are forfeited).

Accordingly, the only issue to be addressed is Lin’s due process argument. Lin argues that his due process rights were violated when the IJ questioned him about his ability to leave China using his own passport. Due process requires that, “[a]t a minimum, [an alien] must be afforded the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner ... by an impartial and disinterested tribunal,” free from “the appearance of bias or hostility.” Ali v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 478, 490 (2d Cir.2008) (citations and internal quotations omitted). To establish a due process violation, an alien must show prejudice arising from the alleged violation. Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 141, 149 (2d Cir.2008). While the record shows that the IJ asked Lin questions about how he was able to leave China when an arrest warrant had allegedly been issued and ruled that Lin’s testimony on this point was not credible, the BIA did not affirm or adopt this ruling, nor did it factor into the denial of relief. Indeed, the BIA explicitly stated that it agreed with the IJ’s decision “even if. [Lin] testified credibly.” Consequently, Lin’s due process claim is meritless because he cannot show prejudice. Garcia-Villeda, 531 F.3d at 149.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.  