XIU YAN WU, Yong Xiang Liu, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, United States Attorney General, Respondent, 694 F. App'x 49

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioners Xiu Yan Wu and Yong Xiang Liu, natives and citizens of China, seek review of an October 5, 2011, decision of the BIA affirming the October 1, 2010, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying Liu’s application for cancellation of removal. In re & Yan Wu, Yong Xiang Liu, Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/076 (B.I.A. Oct. 5, 2011), aff'g Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/076 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 1, 2010).

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case. The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008). Petitioners applied for asylum and related relief based on the birth of their children in the United States purportedly in violation of China’s population control program.

For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, we find no error in the agency’s determination that they failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on the birth of their children. See 546 F.3d at 158-72. That finding was dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). We lack jurisdiction to review thé agency’s denial of cancellation of removal based on Liu’s failure to establish hardship to a qualifying relative. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Barco-Sandoval v.

Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 39-40 (2d Cir. 2008). Although we retain jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law, for which our review is de novo, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009), Liu’s argument that the agency failed to adequately consider the impact his removal would have on his children’s health merely quarrels with the agency’s factual findings, see Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 330-31 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Mendez v.

Holder, 566 F.3d 316, 323 (2d Cir. 2009) (“[T]he agency does not commit an ‘error of law’ every time an item of evidence is not explicitly considered or is described with imperfect accuracy....”). Because we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s dispositive hardship determination, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1)(D), 1252(a)(2)(B), we do not reach the agency’s alternative finding that Liu failed to establish the requisite physical presence for cancellation of removal, see INS v.

Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25, 97 S.Ct. 200, 50 L.Ed.2d 190 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.