
    Gentian SIMONI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-1132-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 12, 2010.
    
      Sokol Braha, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant Director, Ju-ria L. Jones, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Gentian Simoni, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of a March 4, 2009, order of the BIA, affirming the January 12, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Gentian Simoni, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 4, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 12, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

Although the IJ found that Simoni had suffered past persecution as a result of his association with the Democratic Party, he reasonably concluded that conditions in Albania have changed sufficiently such that Simoni’s fear of persecution is no longer objectively well-founded. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(l)(i)(A); Hoxhallari v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 179, 184 (2d Cir.2006). As the BIA explained, even though the Democratic Party was in power when Sim-oni was persecuted in 1996, the Democratic Party lost control in 1997 after a period of unrest, and returned to power after elections in 2005. The finding of substantially changed country conditions since 1996 is thus well-supported in the record. See Hoxhallari, 468 F.3d at 187. Furthermore, we find no support in the record for Simoni’s argument that the IJ failed to consider all of the country conditions evidence in the record. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 338 n. 17 (2d Cir.2006).

Simoni further argues that the agency erred in failing to grant him humanitarian asylum based on the severity of the 1996 persecution. On appeal to the BIA, however, Simoni argued that the agency should grant him humanitarian relief based on incidents that occurred after 1996. The BIA did not reach this argument because it affirmed the IJ’s rejection of the post-1996 allegations on credibility grounds. Thus, to the extent that Simoni now asserts that he is eligible for humanitarian asylum based on his May 1996 persecution, we decline to review that unex-hausted argument. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 123-24 (2d Cir.2007).

Before this Court, Simoni again argues that the agency should have granted him humanitarian asylum based on the later incidents of persecution he alleged. Yet, even assuming his credibility, it is plain that Simoni did not suffer the type of “atrocious” persecution for which humanitarian asylum is reserved. See Matter of Chen, 20 I. & N. Dec. 16, 19-20 (BIA 1989); see also Jalloh v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 148, 151 (2d Cir.2007). Indeed, Simo-ni has never argued that he suffers the long-lasting physical or mental effects that would support humanitarian asylum. See Jalloh, 498 F.3d at 151.

Accordingly, the agency properly denied Simoni’s application for asylum.

Because Simoni failed to challenge the IJ’s denial of his applications for withholding of removal and CAT relief either before the BIA or this Court, we deem any such arguments waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005).

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).  