XIAO CHEN, a.k.a. Shao Qin Chen, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 397 F. App'x 685

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Xiao Chen, a.k.a. Shao Qin Chen, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a June 11, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the October 3, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Theresa Holmes-Simmons denying Chen’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xiao Chen a.k.a. Shao Qin Chen, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 11, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case. Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.

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); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009). The agency reasonably found that Chen did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in light of his wife’s sterilization. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir.2004) (explaining objective component of well-founded fear of future persecution); Jian Xing Huang v.

INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir.2005) (holding that fear is not objectively reasonable if it lacks “solid support” in record and is merely “speculative at best”). Chen did not claim that he was himself beaten, arrested, detained or otherwise persecuted by officials for a violation of the family planning policy or for his protestations when his wife was taken into custody for such a violation. See Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 309-13 (2d Cir.2007) (en banc). Nor did he provide an objectively reasonable basis for believing that officials would seek to persecute him upon his return to China.

Although Chen claimed that officials had sought his sterilization when it was thought that his wife could not undergo such a procedure, the record shows that she was in fact sterilized after Chen left China. Chen has offered no evidence that once China sterilizes one spouse, it thereafter also seeks to sterilize the other. On this record, the agency reasonably found that Chen had not established past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Because Chen failed to show that he had a well-founded fear of persecution, the BIA did not err in denying relief.

Further, because Chen was unable to meet his burden of proof for asylum, he was unable to meet the higher standard required to succeed on a claim for withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006). Chen does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief. 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).