SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Yong Qin Li, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 28, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the December 14, 2006, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert D. Weisel denying Li’s application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yong Qin Li, No. A098 905 763 (B.I.A. Jan. 28, 2009), affg No. A098 905 763 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 14, 2006). 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’s decision. 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); Jian Hui Shao v. Muka-sey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).

I. CAT Relief

' As the government argues, although Li sets forth the standard for CAT relief in his pro se brief before this Court, even construing that brief broadly, see Steevenez v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 114, 118 (2d Cir. 2007), he does not challenge the basis for the agency’s denial of his request for CAT relief. Accordingly, we deem any such challenge waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir. 2005).

II. Withholding of Removal

In the absence of past persecution, an alien can demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal if he can show that it is more likely than not he would face *197 persecution on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2). The agency reasonably found that Li failed to make this showing, because he did not demonstrate a clear probability that authorities in China were either aware of his activities on behalf of the Chinese Democratic Party (“CDP”) or likely to become aware of such activities. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008). *

Before this Court, Li argues that the agency failed to appropriately analyze his claim under the framework articulated in Hongsheng Leng because the BIA “did not expressly rule whether it would be likely or not that the Chinese authorities would be aware of [his] activities.” However, the IJ explicitly addressed this issue, and under such circumstances, the BIA is not required to supplement the IJ’s analysis. See Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 523 (2d Cir. 2007); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4). Similarly, Li’s argument that the IJ failed to consider evidence that he is a member of the CDP is unavailing, as the IJ assumed the credibility of Li’s testimony that Chinese officials photographed him protesting in front of the Chinese consulate. Because the agency’s finding that Li failed to meet his burden of proof for withholding of removal is supported by the record, we need not reach Li’s challenge to the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.

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).