SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Guo Lin Li, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 16, 2009, order of the BIA, affirming the March 29, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Noel Brennan, pretermitting Li’s application for asylum and denying his applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Guo Lin Li, No. A098 220 216 (B.I.A. June 16, 2009), affg No. A098 220 216 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 29, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 891, 394 (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).

As an initial matter, we lack jurisdiction to consider Li’s challenge, to the pretermission of his asylum application. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). To'the extent Li asserts that the ineffective assistance of his prior counsel excuses the untimeliness of his asylum application, that argument is unexhausted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2007). To the extent Li challenges the IJ’s determination that he did not prove the timely filing of his application, we lack jurisdiction to consider his argument because it is neither a constitutional claim nor a question of law. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D); Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d Cir. 2006).

With respect to Li’s challenge to the denial of his application for withholding of removal and CAT relief, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. 1 The IJ based that determination, in part, on Li’s demeanor, finding that he was evasive and hesitant. Because Li failed to challenge the IJ’s demeanor finding, we deem any such argument waived. Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir. 2005). The IJ further noted Li’s omission of certain facts from his original and amended asylum applications. While petitioners are not required to list every incident of persecution on their asylum applications, see Pavlova v. INS, 441 F.3d *261 82, 90 (2d Cir. 2006), as the IJ noted in her decision, the omitted facts were at “the core of his claim,” so it was not unreasonable to expect that he would include them, see Secaidar-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 308 (2d Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008). Furthermore, the IJ did not err in declining to credit Li’s explanation that his prior attorney failed to complete his application and fully detail his persecution. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s reliance on Li’s failure to provide corroborating evidence. Although Li declares that he provided corroborating evidence demonstrating past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution, he points to none. In any event, because the agency found Li not credible, it properly noted the absence of documentary evidence to corroborate his claim. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).

Finally, Li contends that the IJ entered the hearing with a preconceived notion that he was not credible, based on the IJ’s statement that “anyone can learn Falun Gong in the United States.” This statement does not reveal that the IJ was biased such that we cannot conduct a “meaningful review” of the agency’s decision. See Ali v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 478, 490 (2d Cir. 2008).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). Because the only evidence of a threat to Li’s life or freedom depended upon his credibility, the adverse credibility determination in this case necessarily precludes success on his claim for withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. Having completed our review, we DISMISS the petitioner’s pending motion for a stay of removal as moot.