PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, ROGER J. MINER and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Elisabeth Okombi, a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, seeks review of a July 23, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the October 16, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Elisabeth Okombi, No. A 097 976 840 (B.I.A. July 23, 2008), aff'g No. A 097 976 840 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 16, 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 decision of the IJ 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).

As a preliminary matter, we are without jurisdiction to consider Okombi’s challenge to the agency’s determination that her application for asylum was time-barred. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (“No Court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2).”); see also Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2006). While we retain jurisdiction to consider “constitutional claims or questions of law,” see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Okombi’s brief raises no such claims.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Okombi’s claim for withhold *227 ing of removal. The IJ found that, even assuming she suffered past persecution, she did not have an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution because the civil war in Congo is over and the group that allegedly persecuted her, the Cobras, no longer exists. The IJ also found that the current Congolese government gained power “through a democratic process of being elected,” and found “nothing indicating here that they would be attacking her ethnic group or attacking [her] political organization.” Even construing her pro se brief broadly, Okombi does not challenge any of these findings. She asserts only that she should have been granted withholding of removal because of past persecution. Accordingly, we have no basis upon which to disturb the agency’s burden of proof finding, and need not reach its credibility determination. Okombi also does not challenge the agency’s denial of her application for CAT relief.

Finally, Okombi argues that: (1) she was denied a fair hearing due to repeated translation problems; and (2) the IJ erred in denying her motion for a continuance so that she could be examined by a doctor. However, we decline to consider these unexhausted arguments. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2007).

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(b).