SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
Libin Xue, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a May 3, 2013, decision of the BIA that: (1) affirmed the January 6, 2011, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Joanna Miller Bukszpan, denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”); and (2) denied her motion to remand. In re Libin Xue, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 3, 2013), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 6, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision 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 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009); see also Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir.2008); Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 421 F.3d 149, 156-57 (2d Cir.2005).
Xue applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on her claim that she fears persecution because she has had more than one child in violation of China’s population control program. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the agency’s determination that Xue failed to demonstrate her eligibility for relief. See id. at 158-72.
As to Xue’s motion to remand, we find no error in the BIA’s determination that she failed to demonstrate her prima facie eligibility for relief based on her conversion to Christianity. The evidence Xue submitted did not demonstrate that Chinese authorities are aware of, or likely to become aware of, her religious practice. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir.2008); see also Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 168.
For the foregoing reasons, this petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this peti*36tion 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).