
    Eka YANTI, Hermanto Khoman, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-2020-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 11, 2012.
    
      Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY, for Petitioners.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel; Derek C. Julius, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, josé a. cabranes and B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioners Eka Yanti and Hermanto Khoman, natives and citizens of Indonesia, seek review of an April 19, 2011, decision of the BIA denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. In re Eka Yanti and Hermanto Khoman, Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/253 (B.I.A. Apr. 19, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006). As the Government correctly argues, in their motion to reopen, petitioners did not challenge the BIA’s dispositive finding that Yanti can safely relocate in Indonesia. In addition to the statutory requirement that petitioners exhaust the categories of relief they seek, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), petitioners must also raise to the BIA the specific issues they later raise in this Court. See Foster v. INS, 376 F.3d 75, 78 (2d Cir.2004). While not jurisdictional, this judicially imposed exhaustion requirement is mandatory. Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d Cir.2007). Accordingly, because petitioners failed to challenge the relocation finding in the motion to reopen, and because the Government has raised this failure to exhaust in its brief to this Court, we decline to consider this issue. See id. at 124 (describing the issue exhaustion requirement as an “affirmative defense subject to waiver”).

This alone provides a basis for denying the petition for review. Because the agency’s finding that Yanti could safely relocate was dispositive of the petitioners’ claims, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b), 1208.16(b)(2) and (c)(8); Steevenez v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 114, 117-18 (2d Cir.2007) (“An alien’s ability to relocate safely constitutes a ground, in and of itself, on which an [Immigration Judge’s] denial of withholding of removal may be based....”); Singh v. BIA, 435 F.3d 216, 219 (2d Cir.2006) (“Asylum in the United States is not available to obviate re-location to sanctuary in one’s own country.”), and they did not challenge this finding in the motion to reopen or explain why their new evidence demonstrated that there was no area of Indonesia to which they could relocate, they were unable to establish that the result of the proceedings would be different if they were reopened, see Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70, 78 (2d Cir.2005) (finding that to prevail on a motion to reopen, an alien must “establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, ie., a realistic chance that [s]he will be able to establish eligibility” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Finally, although brief, the BIA’s decision provides a sufficient basis for review. See Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir.2006).

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).  