
    XIU JIN JIANG, Guo Zhong Dong, Petitioners, v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, Acting United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    16-4077
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    February 1, 2019
    FOR PETITIONERS: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY.
    FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel; Colin J. Tucker, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
    PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
    SUMMARY ORDER
    Petitioners Xiu Jin Jiang and Guo Zhong Dong, natives and citizens of the People's Republic of China, seek review of a November 14, 2016, BIA decision that affirmed the October 3, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge ("IJ") denying asylum and withholding of removal. In re Xiu Jin Jiang , Guo Zhong Dong , Nos. A072 375 217, A070 868 759 (B.I.A. Nov. 14, 2016), aff'g No. A072 375 217, A070 868 759 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 3, 2014). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under these circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ's and the BIA's opinions "for the sake of completeness." Wangchuck v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006).
    Our jurisdiction is limited to colorable constitutional claims and questions of law because the lead applicant is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D) ; see also Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales , 516 F.3d 35, 40-41 (2d Cir. 2008). Jiang does not raise any such arguments. We note that her challenge to the agency's denial of asylum and withholding of removal based on the birth of her children in the United States, allegedly in violation of China's family planning policy, which is the only claim she does not abandon, is foreclosed by Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 138, 158-67 (2d Cir. 2008) ; see also Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). And we need not consider the agency's alternative basis for denying asylum. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25, 97 S.Ct. 200, 50 L.Ed.2d 190 (1976) ("As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.").
   For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED.  