
    CHEN WEN ZHENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-3168-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 11, 2010.
    Yu Zhang, Law Offices of Fuhao Yang, PLLC, New York, N.Y., for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director; Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, ROBERT A. KATZMANN and B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Chen Wen Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 29, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the April 16, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert D. Weisel denying Zheng’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chen Wen Zheng, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 29, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 16, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, 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). Because the BIA assumed Zheng’s credibility for purposes of its analysis, we will do the same. See id. The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir.2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008).

In the absence of past persecution, an alien can demonstrate eligibility for asylum if he can show that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(i). However, an applicant is not eligible for asylum when he “could avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of [his] country of nationality or, if stateless, another part of [his] country of last habitual residence, and under all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect [him] to do so.” See id. § 1208.13(b)(2)(h). Here, the IJ found that internal relocation was a reasonable option for Zheng. Zheng did not challenge that finding on appeal to the BIA. But the BIA did consider the issue and affirmed the IJ’s finding. We do the same. See Xian Tuan Ye v. DHS, 446 F.3d 289, 296-97 (2d Cir.2006).

Zheng asserts that: (1) it is extremely difficult to change residences in China because of government oversight; and (2) because the Chinese government oversees the activities of local officials, individuals cannot relocate to avoid persecution. These arguments are unavailing given that Zheng’s parents have already relocated within China, and have been able to practice Falun Gong for two years without any incidents of harassment or detention. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir.1999) (finding that where an asylum applicant’s family members continued to live in her native country, any well-founded fear was diminished). The IJ’s relocation finding was dispositive of Zheng’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(l)(i)(B), 1208.16(b)(2), 1208.16(c)(3)(ii).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and 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). 
      
      . As the government argues in its brief, Zheng waives any challenge to the IJ's finding that he failed to establish past persecution on account of his practice of Falun Gong. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005).
     