
    CHANG WEI HE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-0159-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 16, 2010.
    
      Yung H. Hsu, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle, Senior Litigation Counsel, Arthur L. Rabin, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, GUIDO CALABRESI, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), United States Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as Respondent in this case.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Chang Wei He, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, has filed a petition for review of the December 16, 2008 order of the BIA denying her motion to reconsider. In re Chang Wei He, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Dec. 16, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

To the extent He attempts to challenge either the Immigration Judge’s 1998 denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal, or the BIA’s 2002 order dismissing her appeal of that decision, neither of those decisions are properly before this Court because He did not file a timely petition for review of those decisions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). We dismiss the petition for review to that extent. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir.2001).

Only the BIA’s December 2008 order denying He’s motion to reconsider is properly before us. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). However, in the brief in support of her petition, He does not advance any challenges to that order and has thus waived any challenges that could have been raised. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 542 n. 1, 546 n. 7 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review to the extent it was intended to challenge the BIA’s December 2008 order.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 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(b).  