BIN LIN LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 354 F. App'x 533

SUMMARY ORDER Bin Lin Li, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a February 12, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the August 29, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Jeffrey L. Romig, which denied Lin’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Bin Lin Li, No. [ A XXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 12, 2009), aff'g No. [ A XXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 29, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

This Court reviews the agency’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manzur v. DHS, 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir.2007). The Court reviews de novo questions of law and the application of law to undisputed fact. See Salimatou Bah v. Mulcasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008). The agency did not err in denying Li’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Li waived her claim for CAT relief by failing to adequately argue that claim in her brief. See Yueqing Zhang v.

Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005) (finding that issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal in the absence of manifest injustice). As to the agency findings Li does challenge, each was proper. Contrary to Li’s argument, the agency considered each piece of evidence Li submitted and reasonably concluded that she failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S.

Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir.2006) (citing Asociación de Compositores y Editores de Musica LatinoAmericana v. Copyright Royalty Tribunal, 854 F.2d 10, 13 (2d Cir.1988) (“[W]e must review a challenge to the Tribunal’s evidentiary rulings with some deference, for the type of proof that will be acceptable and the weight it should receive lie largely in the discretion of the [Tribunal].”)). Furthermore, the agency adequately considered Li’s past harm in the aggregate. See Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70, 79-80 (2d Cir.2005).

The only events Li testified to concerning her past persecution were her escape from the police after distributing Falun Gong flyers and several visits to her home by Chinese authorities. The BIA addressed both events in its decision, reasonably finding that Li “was never arrested or detained” for handing out the flyers and that “[t]he several home visits by local officials ... [did] not rise to the level of persecution.” See Gui Ci Pan v. U.S. Attorney General, 449 F.3d 408, 412-13 (2d Cir.2006) (unfulfilled threats alone do not constitute past persecution).

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).