SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Lassane Simpore, a native and citizen of Burkina Faso, seeks review of an August 6, 2010 order of the BIA, affirming the October 29, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert D. Weis-el, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). *131 In re Lassane Simpore, No. A089 253 916 (B.I.A. Aug. 6, 2010), aff'g No. A089 253 916 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 29, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 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).

Having reviewed the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the determination that Simpore failed to meet his burden of establishing a well-founded fear of future persecution based on a protected ground. As noted by the IJ, it was “reasonable to expect the Burkina Faso military to detain [Simpore] for questioning, regarding involvement in the unauthorized confiscation of vehicles.” See Long v. Holder, 620 F.3d 162, 166 (2d Cir. 2010) (“As a rule, the enforcement of generally applicable law cannot be said to be on account of the offender’s political opinion, even if the offender objects to the law.”). Moreover, while the IJ found Simpore to be credible, other than Simpore’s testimony that he had “heard” that some individuals were missing or in a military prison, there was no evidence that those who had been arrested in connection with the alleged illegal activity were ever persecuted.

As to the specific arguments raised by Simpore on appeal — (1) that the IJ failed to consider his fear of extended detention and (2) that he was persecuted on account of an imputed political opinion — we decline to consider these arguments since they were never raised before the BIA. See Karaj v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 113, 121 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that an alien appealing an IJ’s decision to the BIA has an “obligation to explain why the IJ’s decision was wrong”); Foster v. INS, 376 F.3d 75, 78 (2d Cir. 2004) (“To preserve a claim, we require ‘[pletitioner to raise issues to the BIA in order to preserve them for judicial review.’ ”) (emphasis in original).

Similarly, Simpore’s eonclusory assertion that the evidence in the record supports his claim for CAT relief is insufficient to raise the issue in this Court. Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir. 2005).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.