
    Chiaka TOLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-4112.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 19, 2012.
    H. Raymond Fasano, Youman, Madeo & Fasano, LLP, New York, N.Y. for Petitioner.
    Eric W. Marsteller, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division (Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, on the brief), for Eric H. Holder Jr., United States Attorney General, Washington, D.C. for Respondent.
    PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Chiaka Tolo, a native and citizen of Mali, seeks review of a September 14, 2011 decision of the BIA, affirming the October 29, 2009 decision of Immigration Judge (“U”) Barbara A. Nelson, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. In re Chiaka Tolo, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Sept. 14, 2011), aff'ing, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 29, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances presented, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir.2008) (per curiam).

Because Tolo does not advance any challenge to the agency’s denial of his claims for withholding of removal, CAT relief, and cancellation of removal, he has waived these claims and we decline to consider them. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005).

Furthermore, we lack jurisdiction to review Tolo’s challenge to the agency’s denial of his asylum claim on timeliness grounds. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Gui Yin Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716, 720 (2d Cir.2007) (per curiam). Although we retain jurisdiction to review questions of law and constitutional claims, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Tolo’s challenge to the agency’s finding that he did not establish changed circumstances is simply a challenge to the agency’s fact-finding, over which we do not have jurisdiction. See Gui Yin Liu, 508 F.3d at 721.

The petition for review is therefore DISMISSED. Any pending request for oral argument is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b), and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.  