SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Simone Maria Soares, a native and citizen of Brazil, seeks review of a June 28, 2010, order of the BIA affirming the October 2, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Michael W. Straus pre-termitting her application for asylum and denying her applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Simone Maria Soares, No. A074 916 028 (B.I.A. June 28, 2010), aff'g No. A074 916 028 (Immig. Ct. Hartford, CT Oct. 2, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). 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).

With respect to Soares’s claim for withholding of removal, 1 the IJ found, *38 inter alia, that she failed to demonstrate that the Brazilian authorities were unwilling to control the threats and harassment directed towards Soares by Marcos Geova-ni Bento (“Mazar”). See Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that a petitioner may establish her eligibility for relief by showing that she was persecuted by “private actors who behave with impunity in the face of government reluctance to intervene”). The BIA affirmed this finding on appeal. However, Soares fails to raise this issue in her brief before this Court, and therefore abandons any challenge to the agency’s dispositive determination. In any event, Soares testified before the IJ that the Brazilian police had apprehended Ma-zar, questioned him, and threatened him with arrest if he attempted to contact her in the future. The agency therefore did not err in denying Soares’s claim for withholding of removal. See Ivanishvili, 433 F.3d at 342.

With respect to her claim for CAT relief, Soares argues that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured by Ma-zar with the acquiescence of the government if returned to Brazil. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(7); see also Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 171 (2d Cir. 2004) (“In terms of state action, torture requires only that government officials know of or remain willfully blind to an act and thereafter breach their legal responsibility to prevent it.”). However, as noted above, her argument is belied by the fact that the authorities in Brazil have taken concrete steps to prevent Mazar’s harassment. The BIA therefore did not err in denying Soares’s application for CAT relief because it reasonably determined that Soares failed to demonstrate the requisite government acquiescence. See Khouzam, 361 F.3d at 171.

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).