
    Gloria MELO-ROJAS, aka Gloria Mejia-Rojas, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-2270 NAC.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 28, 2015.
    
      Mark R. von Sternberg, Jodi Ziesemer, Catholic Charities, New York, N.Y., for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Claire L. Workman, Senior Litigation Counsel; Elizabeth D. Kurlan, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United ' States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., JOSÉ A. CABRANES, and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Gloria Melo-Rojas, a native and citizen of Peru, seeks review of a May 8, 2013, decision of the BIA affirming a May 30, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Melo-Rojas’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Gloria Melo-Rojas, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 8, 2013), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 30, 2012). 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). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

To be eligible for asylum or withholding of removal, an applicant must show that she fears persecution on account of a protected ground. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1231(b)(3)(A). The IJ concluded that even if Melo-Rojas’s testimony were credible, she did not show that the harm she suffered was on account of a protected ground. This finding is dispositive of her claims for asylum and withholding of removal. Melo-Rojas did not challenge that conclusion in her brief to the BIA, and consequently the BIA did not consider it. Nor does Melo-Rojas challenge the nexus finding before this Court.

Eligibility for CAT relief does not require a nexus to a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(e), 1208.17; Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 168 (2d Cir.2004). However, Melo-Rojas did not challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT relief before the BIA; based on her failure to do so, the BIA did not consider the issue; and Melo-Rojas does not raise it before this Court.

By failing to challenge the IJ’s disposi-tive 2 determinations regarding her eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, Melo-Rojas abandoned all of her claims for relief, and we cannot review them.

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).  