
    Abdoul Wahab Tahirou WANE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-11.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 28, 2013.
    Theodore Vialet, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director; Katharine E. Clark, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Present: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROBERT D. SACK and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

Petitioner Abdoul Wahab Tahirou Wane, a native and citizen of Mauritania, seeks review of a December 5, 2011, order of the BIA affirming the May 17, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Vivienne E. Gordon-Uruakpa denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Abdoul Wahab Tahirou Wane, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Dec. 5, 2011), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 17, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (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).

In challenging the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal, Wane argues that he suffered past persecution and will face future persecution on account of his sexuality. However, he does not meaningfully challenge the agency’s adverse credibility determination. That credibility determination forecloses Wane’s claim of past persecution, because the agency found that his testimony regarding his past mistreatment in Mauritania was not credible. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 154-56 (2d Cir.2006). And it also forecloses Wane’s claim that he will face future persecution on account of his sexuality, because, as we read the BIA’s decision, the agency concluded that Wane did not credibly demonstrate that he was a gay man.

The agency also concluded that Wane did not suffer past persecution or demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his race or ethnicity. Wane does not identify any errors in that conclusion.

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). 
      
      . Nor does the brief challenge the agency's denial of CAT relief.
     