
    Yan CHEN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-2889.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 18, 2016.
    Aileen Shao, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Terri J. Sca-dron, Assistant Director; Wendy Benner-León, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, PETER W. HALL, and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Yan Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 22, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming a May 8, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Chen’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yan Chen, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. July 22, 2014), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 8, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Chen challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and denial of CAT relief. His arguments are unexhausted. We decline to consider them in the first instance.

In addition to the statutory requirement that petitioners exhaust the categories of relief they seek, 8 U.S.C. § 1262(d)(1), petitioners are required to 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). This issue exhaustion requirement is “mandatory.” Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 118-24 (2d Cir.2007).

On appeal to the BIA, Chen did not make any specific challenge to the IJ’s decision. Chen, represented by counsel, did not submit a brief to the BIA and argued only that the IJ’s decision was “arbitrary capricious and an abuse of discretion” and “contrary to the evidence.” The BIA noted that Chen made “no specific argument” on appeal “beyond these eon-clusory assessments of the [IJ’s] decision” and affirmed the IJ’s decision. Chen’s generalized challenges to the IJ’s decision are insufficient to conclude that the BIA was provided a full opportunity to consider petitioner’s arguments. See Theodoropou- los v. INS, 358 F.3d 162, 171 (2d Cir.2004). Accordingly, we decline to consider Chen’s unexhausted arguments in the first instance. See Lin Zhong, 480 F.3d at 107 n. 1.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.  