SUMMARY ORDER

Aziz Hadi Ahmed Alfalahi, a native and citizen of Yemen, seeks review of a June 18, 2010 decision of the BIA affirming the July 23, 2008 decision of immigration judge (“U”) William Van Wyke, pretermitting his application for asylum as untimely and denying his applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Aziz Hadi Ahmed Alfalahi, No. A093 124 505 (B.I.A. June 18, 2010), aff'g No. A093 124 505 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. C. July 23, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions. See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, treating those findings as conclusive unless a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary, and review questions of law de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

We identify no error in the agency’s determination that Alfalahi failed to establish his eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT relief. 1 The IJ’s explicit discussion of the U.S. Department of State reports in the record does not suggest that he ignored other evidence cited by Alfal-ahi, namely, internet articles noting that relatives of AI-Houthi supporters had been detained. See Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting that agency not required to “expressly parse or refute” each “piece of evidence offered” by petitioner (internal quotation marks omitted)). Indeed, the IJ noted that “somebody associated with the Al-Houthis may indeed run a risk that” others do not, but nonetheless determined that Alfalahi’s “tangential relation” to Al-Houthis, who have a predominantly political dispute *441 with the Yemeni government, did not demonstrate a clear probability that Alfalahi would be persecuted because of his Shi’a religion. In re Aziz Hadi Ahmed Alfalahi, No. A093 124 505 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. C. July 28, 2008). This determination was supported by substantial evidence, including the State Department reports.

Moreover, the BIA did not engage in impermissible fact-finding in determining that the articles Alfalahi cited were not materially different from the State Department reports that the IJ explicitly considered. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i)-(ii) (stating that BIA reviews IJ’s fact finding under “clearly erroneous” standard but “may review questions of law, discretion, and judgment and all other issues ... de novo”); see also Padmore v. Holder, 609 F.3d 62, 69 (2d Cir. 2010) (providing that BIA may consider all record evidence, but “must remand to the IJ” if it “concludes that findings should be made” regarding truth of matters asserted in evidence).

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).