Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure * 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case. 08 -56 64-ag Siuv. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A098 563 370 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFE CT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL . 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 4 day of February, two thousand ten. th 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 10 Circuit Judges . 11

_______________________________________ 12 13 YUEN CHUEN SIU, 14 Petitioner , 15 16 v. 08-5664-ag 17 NAC 18 ERIC H. HOLDER JR., UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, * 20 Respondent . 21

_______________________________________ 22 23 24 252 1 FOR PETITIONER: John X. Wang, New York, New York. 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 4 General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant 5 Director; Genevieve Holm, Trial 6 Attorney, Office of Immigration 7 Litigation, United States Department 8 of Justice, Washington, D.C. 9 1 0 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 1 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review 1 3 is DENIED. 1 4 Yuen Chuen Siu, a native and citizen of the People’s 1 5 Republic of China, seeks review of a November 6, 2008 order 1 6 of the BIA that: (1) affirmed the October 26, 2006 decision 1 7 of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson, which 1 8 pretermitted his application for asylum and denied his 1 9 application for withholding of removal; and (2) denied his 2 0 motion to remand. In re Yuen Chuen Siu , No. A098 563 370 2 1 (B.I.A. Nov. 6, 2008), aff’gNo. A098 563 370 (Immig. Ct. 2 2 N.Y. City Oct. 26, 2006). We assume the parties’ 2 3 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 2 4 in this case. 2 5 As an initial matter, because Siu does not challenge: 2 6 (1) the agency’s pretermission of his application for 2 7 asylum; (2) the agency’s finding that prosecution for3 1 illegally departing China did not constitute persecution; 2 and (3) the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand, we deem 3 any such arguments abandoned. See Yueqing Zhang v. 4 Gonzales , 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). 5 When the BIA does not expressly “adopt” the IJ’s 6 decision, but its brief opinion closely tracks the IJ’s 7 reasoning, the Court may consider both the IJ’s and the 8 BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. 9 Mukasey , 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). We review the 1 0 agency’s factual findings under the substantial evidence 1 1 standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. 12 Mukasey , 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008). We review de novo 1 3 questions of law and the application of law to undisputed 1 4 fact. Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey , 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 1 5 2008). 1 6 We find that the agency reasonably concluded that Siu 1 7 failed to demonstrate that he had suffered past persecution in China. 1 8 The BIA has defined persecution as “a threat to 1 9 the life or freedom of, or the infliction of suffering or 2 0 harm upon, those who differ in a way regarded as offensive.” 21 Matter of Acosta , 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 222 (BIA 1985). This 2 2 Court has clarified that a valid past persecution claim can4 1 be based on harm other than threats to life or freedom, 2 including non-life-threatening violence and physical abuse. 3 Beskovic v. Gonzales , 467 F.3d 223, 226 n.3 (2d Cir. 2006) 4 (citing Tian-Yong Chen v. INS , 359 F.3d 121, 128 (2d. Cir. 5 2004)). In order to constitute persecution, the alleged 6 harm must be sufficiently severe, rising above “mere 7 harassment.” Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 433 F.3d 8 332, 341 (2d Cir. 2006). Economic harm may constitute 9 persecution, however, “an applicant for asylum must 1 0 demonstrate a severe economic disadvantage.” In re T-Z- , 24 1 1 I. & N. Dec. 163, 173 (BIA 2007). Indeed, “[t]he economic 1 2 difficulties must be above and beyond those generally shared 1 3 by others in the country of origin and involve noticeably 1 4 more than mere loss of social advantages or physical 1 5 comforts.” Id. 1 6 Although Siu testified before the IJ that his family 1 7 was deprived of food subsidies, education, medical benefits, 1 8 and housing in China, he provided no specific details of 1 9 ever being denied such benefits. Furthermore, Siu admitted 2 0 that when he was five years old, his family moved to Hong 2 1 Kong where he attended school for eleven years and suffered 2 2 no harm. Because Siu failed to describe any incident of5 1 harm suffered, much less severe harm, the agency reasonably 2 determined that he did not establish that he had suffered 3 past persecution. See Ivanishvili , 433 F.3d at 341; In re T-Z- , 24 I. & N. Dec. at 172-73. 4 5 Similarly, the agency did not err in finding that Siu 6 failed to demonstrate a likelihood of forced sterilization 7 on account of the birth of his U.S. citizen child. Indeed, 8 in light of the fact that Siu was not in violation of 9 China’s family planning policy with the birth of his one 1 0 child, the agency did not err in finding speculative his 1 1 fear of such persecution. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS , 421 1 2 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, as Siu failed to 1 3 demonstrate either past persecution or a likelihood of 1 4 future persecution, the agency did not err in denying his 1 5 application for withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b). 16 1 7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. T 1 8 he pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 19 2 0 FOR THE COURT: 2 1 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 22 23 24