Thierno DIALLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 374 F. App'x 118

SUMMARY ORDER The Petitioner, Thierno Diallo, a native and citizen of Guinea, seeks review of an April 18, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the August 20, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“U”) Barbara A. Nelson pre-termitting his application for asylum, and denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Diallo, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 13, 2009), aff’g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 20, 2007). 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. Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008). Following Diallo’s merits hearing, the IJ pretermitted his untimely application for asylum and found him not credible with respect to his withholding of removal and CAT claims. Diallo did not challenge these findings with any specificity on appeal to the BIA, a fact the BIA noted in its decision.

In his brief before this Court, Diallo for the first time challenges the IJ’s pretermission of his untimely asylum application and several of the bases for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. We deem these arguments unexhausted and will not consider them. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 107 (2d Cir.2007). Although we may properly consider arguments not raised before the BIA if the BIA nonetheless addressed them, see Xian Tuan Ye v.

DHS, 446 F.3d 289, 296-97 (2d Cir.2006), we find that the BIA’s mere reiteration of these findings was insufficient to excuse Diallo’s failure to challenge them. See Steevenez v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir.2007). Diallo’s failure to exhaust is fatal to his petition for review. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 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). . We lack jurisdiction to consider Diallo's unexhausted challenge to the IJ's pretermission of his untimely asylum application, and dismiss the petition for review to that extent. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1). Although Diallo's failure to challenge the IJ's adverse credibility determination before the BIA implicates the mandatory (but non-jurisdictional) issue exhaustion requirement, see Lin Zhong v. U.S.

Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d Cir.2007), we decline to consider his arguments.