SAIPING WU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 383 F. App'x 100

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Saiping Wu, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the March 6, 2009, order of the BIA, affirming the November 30, 2006, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Joanna Miller Bukszpan denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Saiping Wu, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 6, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 30, 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the decision of the IJ 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 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008). The agency reasonably found that even assuming Wu resisted the family planning policy by hiding in the mountains with his wife, he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum.

The BIA correctly found that Wu was ineligible for relief based solely on his wife’s forced sterilization. See Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 309-10 (2d Cir.2007); see also Matter of S-L-L- 24 I & N Dec. 1 (BIA 2006). In addition, the BIA found that Wu had not engaged in “other resistance” to China’s family planning policy, but that even assuming he did, he had not established that: (1) the “hardships” he suffered rose to the level of persecution; and (2) he suffered “hardships” on account of his resistance (i.e. hiding with his wife). Shi Liang Lin, 494 F.3d at 309-10.

Wu also argues that the agency deprived him of due process by relying on a “sudden change of law.” This argument, however, is without merit because he failed to exhaust any challenge to the IJ’s finding that his wife's forced sterilization did not render him per se eligible for asylum. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d Cir.2007). As Wu failed to demonstrate his eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet his burden for withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006).

Additionally, the single sentence in Wu’s brief related to the agency’s denial of his application for CAT relief is insufficient to raise that issue for our review. 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. 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).