Amir JAVED, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 474 F. App'x 9

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Amir Javed, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of a January 13, 2011 decision of the BIA affirming the August 5, 2010 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams denying Javed’s application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Amir Javed, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Jan. 13, 2011), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 5, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 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. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009). Because Javed is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2), we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s factual findings and discretionary determinations. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Our jurisdiction is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Javed argues that the agency failed to consider his evidence confirming his membership in the Pakistan Muslim League Q (“PML Q”) and that prisoners in Pakistan are routinely subjected to torture. However, while we have suggested that the agency’s failure to consider evidence may constitute an error of law, see Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316, 323 (2d Cir.2009) (per curiam), the record does not compel the conclusion that the agency ignored any evidence. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 337 n. 17 (2d Cir.2006).

We do not have jurisdiction to consider Javed’s other challenges to the agency’s conclusion that he did not establish a likelihood of persecution or torture as those arguments essentially “quarrel ] over the correctness of the [agency’s] factual findings.” Id. at 329. We have jurisdiction to consider Javed’s argument that the IJ deprived him of due process by denying his request for a continuance so that his mother could testify as it presents a colorable constitutional claim. However, Javed did not establish that he was “denied a full and fair opportunity to present [his] claims,” Burger v.

Gonzales, 498 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir.2007), as he was given an opportunity to present his mother as a witness and did not demonstrate that the IJ’s denial of the continuance he requested was outside of the IJ’s “wide latitude in calendar management,” Morgan v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549, 551 (2d Cir.2006). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED 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 note Javed’s argument that the agency erred as a matter of law in concluding that westernized Pakistanis are not a protected social group. However, we do not address it because the agency made an alternative, dis-positive finding that even if they were a protected social group, Javed did not establish a likelihood that he would be persecuted as a member of that group.

We lack jurisdiction to consider any challenge to that factual determination.