JIN QI JIANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 462 F. App'x 25

SUMMARY ORDER Jin Qi Jiang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 21, 2011 order of the BIA, affirming the December 17, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Javier Balas-quide, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jin Qi Jiang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Jan. 21, 2011), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 17, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the I J’s decision as modified by the BIA decision. See 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 sole argument Jiang raises before this Court is that the BIA erred by failing to appropriately evaluate his claim of economic persecution. Although Jiang failed to raise this argument before the agency, we consider the issue exhausted because the BIA explicitly addressed it in its decision.

See Ruiz-Martinez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 102, 112 n. 7 (2d Cir.2008) (citing with approval Xian Tuan Ye v. DHS, 446 F.3d 289, 296-97 (2d Cir.2006); Waldron v. INS, 17 F.3d 511, 515 n. 7 (2d Cir.1994)). Here, the BIA reasonably found that Jiang failed to demonstrate that the fines imposed by family planning officials following the birth of his children did not constitute economic persecution. See In re TZ- 24 I. & N. Dec. 163, 173 (BIA 2007) (holding that for economic harm to constitute persecution, “an applicant for asylum must demonstrate a severe economic disadvantage”).

First, Jiang failed to demonstrate that he suffered a severe economic disadvantage resulting from his having to pay the 2,000 renminbi (“RMB”) fine following the birth of his first child, testifying only that he paid the fine in full using funds he borrowed from his neighbors and relatives.

Moreover, although Jiang testified that he “didn’t have the money” to pay the 5,000 RMB fine that was assessed following the birth of his second child, he did not present any evidence or testimony of his personal financial situation or income at the time, which would support his contention that he suffered a severe economic disadvantage due to the imposition of this fine. See Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep’t. of Justice, 293 F.3d 61, 70 (2d Cir.2002). Accordingly, the agency reasonably denied Jiang’s application for asylum.

Because he failed to meet the burden of asylum, Jiang necessarily failed to meet the higher burden for withholding of removal, as that claim was based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148,156 (2d Cir.2006). 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).