YUE WEN ZHONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 482 F. App'x 628

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner, Yue Wen Zhong, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 29, 2010, decision of the BIA affirming the January 13, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert Weisel denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yue Wen Zhong, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Dec, 29, 2010), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 13, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

The IJ found that Zhong’s asylum claim was untimely and, therefore, considered only his eligibility for withholding of removal and CAT relief. The BIA, however, assumed for the purposes of its decision that Zhong had established changed circumstances and proceeded to address the merits of all three claims. Accordingly, we have reviewed only the decision of the BIA. See Shi Jie Ge v. Holder, 588 F.3d 90, 93 (2d Cir.2009).

We review the agency’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard, which requires us to treat those findings as conclusive unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be corn-pelled to conclude to the contrary.” Su Chun Hu v. Holder, 579 F.3d 155, 158 (2d Cir.2009). To establish eligibility for asylum based on future persecution, an applicant must demonstrate that he possess a subjective fear that he will be persecuted if returned to his country of origin and that this fear is objectively reasonable. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir.2004).

In this case, the agency reasonably concluded that Zhong failed to establish that his fear of persecution based on his membership in the China Democracy Party (“CDP”) USA Headquarters was objectively well founded. Zhong has put forth no evidence to establish that Chinese nationals who participate in anti-government political activity while abroad are regularly persecuted upon their return to that country.

Although several articles in the record reported interrogations and detentions of prominent Chinese nationals who published hundreds of anti-Communist articles on overseas websites, the record does not compel the conclusion that Zhong, who published only four articles from the United States, would be subjected to similar treatment if he returned to China. Nor did the agency err in finding that Zhong did not proffer sufficient proof that the Chinese government would discover his CDP activities. See Hongsheng Leng v.

Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir.2008) (holding that an applicant seeking relief based on future harm must make some showing that the government is aware or is likely to become aware of his disfavored belief or characteristic). Although Zhong argues that the Chinese government would have discovered the anti-Communist articles that he published on the internet, that claim is speculative. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir.2005) (holding that a fear is not objectively reasonable if it lacks “solid support” in the record).

Moreover, contrary to Zheng’s argument, the agency did not err in giving diminished weight to his wife’s unsworn and uncross-examined statements that police came to the family’s home in China looking for her husband. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir.2006) (the weight to be accorded to documentary evidence lies largely within the agency’s discretion).

Because Zheng’s claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief were based on the same factual predicate but are subject to a higher burden of proof, it follows a fortiori that the agency did not err in denying those forms of relief as well. See Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 178. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, Zheng’s pending motion for a stay of removal is DISMISSED as moot. .

Although Zhong cites a 2007 State Department report indicating that "the Chinese government monitors the political activities of students or exchange scholars living abroad,” that report is not part of the administrative record, and we may not consider it in our review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (limiting the Court’s review of a petition for review to the administrative record on which the order of removal is based).