YANYU LU, Qingfeng Chen, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 363 F. App'x 127

SUMMARY ORDER Yanyu Lu and Qingfeng Chen, natives and citizens of China, seek review of a May 29, 2009 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), reversing the May 17, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) George T. Chew, which granted their application for asylum. In re Yanyu Lu, Qingfeng Chen, Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 29, 2009), rev’g Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 17, 2007). We presume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review only the decision of the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). We review an agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, and will reverse factual determinations only if any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude the contrary. See Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution under the Chinese family planning policy on account of the birth of their U.S. citizen children.

See Jian Hui Shoo v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 158-73 (2d Cir.2008). Because the BIA did not err in finding that petitioners failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on account of the birth of their U.S. citizen children, it reasonably denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) insofar as those applications were based on that claim. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).

We do not consider petitioners’ argument that they are eligible for CAT relief based on their purportedly illegal departure from China because that argument was not properly exhausted at the administrative level. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d Cir.2007). 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.