The Ho nor abl e M ark R. Kr avi tz, , o f t he Uni tedSt ate s D ist ric t C our t * for th e D ist ric t o f C onn ect icu t, sit tin g b y d esi gna tio n. 

### 1 09

- 26 04

- ag L u v . H o lder 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F OR 

### T HE 

### S ECO ND 

### C IRC UIT 

### SUMMARY ORDER RUL ING S BY SUM

MAR Y ORD ER DO NOT HA VE PRE CED ENT IAL EF FEC T. CI TAT IONTOA SUM MAR Y O RDE R F ILE D ON OR AFT ER JANUAR Y 1 , 2 007 , IS PER

MIT TED AND IS GOV

ERN ED BY FED ERAL R ULE OFAP PEL LAT E P ROC EDU RE 32. 1 A ND THI S COU RT’ S LOCAL RUL E 32. 1.1 . WHE N C ITI NG A S UMM ARYOR DER INA DOC UME NT FIL ED WIT H THI S C OURT, A P

ART Y M UST CI TE EIT HER

TH E F EDE RAL AP PEN DIXOR ANEL ECT RON IC DATABA SE (WI TH THE NOTATI ON “SU

MMA RY ORD ER” ). A PAR TY CIT ING A SUM MAR Y ORD ER MUS T SER

VE A COP Y OF IT ON ANYPA RTY NOT RE PRE SEN TED BYCO UNS EL 

### .

At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 2 day of February, two thousand and ten. nd 

### Present: RICHARD C. WESLEY,

GERARD E. LYNCH,

Circuit Judges , MARK R. KRAVITZ,

District Judge . *



### ________________________________________________ YANYU LU, QINGFENG CHEN, Petitioners,

- v. - (09-2604-ag) ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent .
__________________________________________________

### 2

For Petitioners: YANYU LU, QINGFENG CHEN, pro se , New

York, New York For Respondent: TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General; ANTHONY C. PAYNE, Senior Litigation Counsel; YEDIDYA COHEN, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION , it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 2 AND DECREED, that the petition for review is DENIED. 3 Yanyu Lu and Qingfeng Chen, natives and citizens of 4 China, seek review of a May 29, 2009 order of the Board of 5 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), reversing the May 17, 2007 6 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) George T. Chew, which 7 granted their application for asylum. In re Yanyu Lu, 8 Qingfeng Chen , Nos. A094 813 907, A094 813 908 (B.I.A. May 9 29, 2009), rev’g Nos. A094 813 907, A094 813 908 (Immig. Ct. 10 N.Y. City May 17, 2007). We presume the parties’ 11 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 12 in this case. 13 Under the circumstances of this case, we review only the 14 decision of the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 15 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review an agency’s factual

### 3 1 findings for substantial evidence, and will reverse factual 2 determinations only if any reasonable adjudicator would be 3 compelled to conclude the contrary. See Bah v. Mukasey , 529 4 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008). 5 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination 6 that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a well-founded 7 fear of persecution under the Chinese family planning policy on account of the birth of their U.S. citizen children. See 8 9 Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 138, 158-73 (2d Cir. 2008). Because the BIA did not err in finding that 10 11 petitioners failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of 12 persecution on account of the birth of their U.S. citizen 13 children, it reasonably denied their applications for 14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) insofar as those 16 applications were based on that claim. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). 17 18 We do not consider petitioners’ argument that they are 19 eligible for CAT relief based on their purportedly illegal 20 departure from China because that argument was not properly 21 exhausted at the administrative level. See Lin Zhong v. 22 U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2007).

### 4

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1 2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 3 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 5 this petition is DISMISSED. 6 7 8 For the Court 9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 10 11 12