
    Mohamed KAMARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., United States Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Board of Immigration Appeals, Respondents.
    No. 11-69-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 6, 2012.
    Brian I. Kaplan, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel; Jonathan Robbins, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
    
      PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
    
    
      
      . The Honorable Roger J. Miner, originally a member of the panel, died on February 18, 2012. The two remaining members of the panel, who are in agreement, have determined the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d); 2d Cir. IOP E(b); United States v. Desimone, 140 F.3d 457 (2d Cir. 1998).
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Mohamed Kamara, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, seeks review of a November 23, 2010, order of the BIA, affirming the December 9, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Douglas B. Schoppert, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mohamed Kamara, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 23, 2010), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 9, 2008). 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. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). We review the agency’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. See Aliyev v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 111, 115 (2d Cir. 2008).

Here, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that conditions in Sierra Leone have fundamentally changed such that Kamara’s fear that he will be persecuted if returned to that country is no longer well founded. See Jalloh v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 148, 151 (2d Cir.2007) (finding that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding that country conditions in Sierra Leone had changed with the conclusion of the civil war). As the agency found, the U.S. Department of State’s 2007 Country Report on Human Rights Practices for Sierra Leone (“2007 Country Report”) indicated that “[i]n 2002, the devastating 11-year civil war officially ended, and the government, backed by a United Nations peacekeeping force (UN-AMSIL), asserted control over the whole country.” Moreover, the agency reasonably determined that the evidence in the record confirmed that the Revolutionary United Front (“RUF”) rebel group had been disarmed, demobilized, and disbanded, as the 2007 Country Report indicated that “[d]uring the year the remaining combatants who fought for the RUF, the rebel group that started the country’s 11-year civil war ... were sentenced to death and were on death row at year’s end.”

Kumara argues that “even if the RUF rebels have disbanded, they possibly still live in the community and are dangerous to someone like [him] who witnessed many atrocities.” Kamara’s argument is unavailing, however, as there is no evidence in the record that the RUF rebel group at whose hands Kamara testified he had suffered remains active in Sierra Leone, or that former RUF members continue to target civilians. Accordingly, the agency reasonably concluded that record evidence that the civil war had ended and combatants were disarmed and disbanded established a fundamental change in country conditions and rebutted Kamara’s claim to a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1); Passi v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 98, 101 (2d Cir.2008).

As the agency’s finding of changed country conditions is supported by the record and is dispositive of Kamara’s asylum claim, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(l)(i)(A), we need not reach the agency’s alternative adverse-credibility and nexus findings.

Because Kamara was unable to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim, he was necessarily unable to meet the higher standard required to demonstrate his eligibility for withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006); Gomez v. INS, 947 F.2d 660, 665 (2d Cir.1991).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, Kamara’s January 7, 2011 motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.  