
    HAI HUI QIU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-3901-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 11, 2010.
    
      Robert J. Adinolfi, Louis & Adinolfi, New York, N.Y., for Petitioner.
    Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Keith I. McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jessica E. Sherman, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Hai Hui Qiu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 28, 2008 order of the BIA, affirming the September 18, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Terry A. Bain, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hai Hui Qiu, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. July 28, 2008), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 18, 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

When the BIA summarily affirms the decision of the IJ without issuing an opinion, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), this Court reviews the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir.2008). We review the agency’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Questions of law and the application of law to undisputed fact are reviewed de novo. See Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008).

We conclude that the agency did not err in finding that Qiu failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum or -withholding of removal. The agency properly found that Qiu had failed to show that at least one “central reason” for any mistreatment that he suffered was “on account of’ his political opinion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(i). Qiu did not exhaust his claim of future persecution to the BIA, but we note that he did not show that any mistreatment that he would suffer upon return to China would be “on account of’ his political opinion. See id.; see also Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 (2d Cir.2005) (an “applicant must also show, through direct or circumstantial evidence, that the persecutor’s motive to persecute arises from the applicant’s political belief’). According to Qiu’s testimony, the “central reason” he was sought by the authorities was that his Village Chiefs nephew attacked him during a basketball game and Qiu reported it to the police and the County Chief. While Qiu argues that the authorities planted Falun Gong material in his home, he does not contend that the authorities in fact believed him to practice Falun Gong and that the police officers who planted the material, or others within the police force, did or will seek to persecute him on account of their belief that he practices Falun Gong. Qiu need not show that a protected ground was the sole basis for his persecution, but he must at least show that it was or would be a motivating factor. See Uwais v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 478 F.3d 513, 517 (2d Cir.2007). Therefore, because Qiu failed to show the requisite nexus to a protected ground, the agency did not err in denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 155-56 (2d Cir.2006) (withholding claim necessarily fails if the applicant is unable to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim).

Finally, in his brief to this Court, Qiu failed to challenge the agency’s finding that he was ineligible for CAT relief. We therefore deem waived any challenge to the denial of such relief. See Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 541 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. The 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(b).  