
    BO FU ZHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Respondent.
    No. 08-3980-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 8, 2010.
    Bo Fu Zhu, Bayside, N.Y., pro se.
    Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel, Zoe J. Heller, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, SONIA SOTOMAYOR and 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 Acting Attorney General Mark R. Filip as respondent in this case.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Bo Fu Zhu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 25, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the November 27, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Theresa Holmes-Simmons, denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Bo Fu Zhu, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Jul. 25, 2008), aff'g No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 27, 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

We review the submissions of pro se petitioners broadly to raise the best arguments they suggest. See Bertin v. United States, 478 F.3d 489, 491 (2d Cir.2007). Here, however, even broadly construed, Zhu argues only that the agency erred by failing to consider his claim that he would be tortured by snakeheads if he is returned to China. Thus, we deem the other arguments he made before the agency to have been waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005). These include his family planning claim, his claim that he would be tortured by Chinese authorities for illegally departing the country, and any claim that he was entitled to asylum or withholding of removal where Zhu’s brief addresses only CAT relief.

While Zhu contends before this Court that the IJ erred by failing to consider his CAT claim based on “snakehead torture,” he did not make any such claim before the BIA. The Government raises this failure to exhaust in its brief to this Court. Accordingly, we decline to consider this unex-hausted issue. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 119-22 (2d Cir.2007). Because Zhu’s petition for review is based solely on his unexhausted claim that he will be tortured by snake-heads if returned to China, there is nothing left for us to review.

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.  