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 -42 15 -ag Lin v . Hold er BIA Ne ls on, IJ A200 037 104 

### UNITE D STATES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY O RDE R

R ULI NGS BY SUMMARY ORD ER DO NOT HA VE PRE CED ENT IAL EF FEC T . C ITA TIO N T O ASUMMARY OR DE R FILED ON OR AFT ER J

ANUARY 1, 200 7, IS PE RMI TTE D AND IS GOV ERN ED BY FEDE RAL R ULE OF APPE LLA TE P ROC EDU RE 32. 1 AND TH IS COU RT ’ S L OCA L R ULE 32. 1.1 . WHEN CI TIN G ASUMMARY ORD ER IN A D OCUMEN T F ILE D W ITH TH IS COU RT , A PAR TY MUS T C ITE EI THE R T HE FEDE RAL APPE NDI X O R AN E LEC TRO NIC DA TAB ASE ( WIT H T HE NOT ATI ON “ SUMMAR Y O RDE R ”). A PARTY CI TIN G ASUMMARY ORD ER MUS T S ERV E ACO PY OF IT ON ANY PAR TY NOT RE PRE SEN TED BY COU NSE L . 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 6 day of January, two thousand ten. th 5 PRESENT: 6 ROGER J. MINER, 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 Circuit Judges . 10

_______________________________________ 11 12 YUE PING LIN, 13 Petitioner , 14 v. 08-4215-ag 15 NAC 16 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 17 ATTORNEY GENERAL, * 18 Respondent . 19

_______________________________________2 1 FOR PETITIONER: Feng Li, Law Offices of Fengling 2 Liu, New York, New York. 3 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 4 General; Carl H. McIntyre Jr., 5 Assistant Director; Regina Byrd, 6 Attorney, Office of Immigration 7 Litigation, United States Department 8 of Justice, Washington, D.C. 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 0 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 1 1 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 1 2 is DENIED. 1 3 Yue Ping Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s 1 4 Republic of China, seeks review of a July 30, 2008 order of 1 5 the BIA, affirming the October 2, 2007 decision of 1 6 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson, which denied his 1 7 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 1 8 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yue 19 Ping Lin , No. A200 037 104 (B.I.A. July 30, 2008), aff’gNo. 2 0 A200 037 104 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 2, 2007). We assume 2 1 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 2 2 procedural history in this case. 2 3 When the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ and 2 4 supplements the IJ’s decision, we review the decision of the 2 5 IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales ,3 1 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s 2 factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. 3 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. Mukasey , 4 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008). We review de novo questions 5 of law and the application of law to undisputed fact. 6 Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey , 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008). 7 As an initial matter, despite Lin’s failure to raise to 8 the BIA his argument that he demonstrated his eligibility 9 for asylum and withholding of removal on account of his 1 0 resistance to China’s family planning policy, see 8 U.S.C. 1 1 § 1101(a)(42), we consider such argument exhausted because 1 2 the BIA addressed that issue on appeal. See Theodoropoulos 13 v. INS , 358 F.3d 162, 171 (2d Cir. 2004); see also Xian Tuan 14 Ye v. DHS , 446 F.3d 289, 296-97 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). 1 5 Nonetheless, the BIA did not err in finding that Lin 1 6 failed to demonstrate past persecution based on his claim of 1 7 resistance to the family planning policy. See Shi Liang Lin 18 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 494 F.3d 296, 313 (2d Cir. 2007) 1 9 (en banc). The BIA has defined “resistance” in the context 2 0 of family planning to cover “a wide range of circumstances, 2 1 including expressions of general opposition, attempts to 2 2 interfere with enforcement of government policy in4 1 particular cases, and other overt forms of resistance to the 2 requirements of the family planning law.” Matter of 3 S-L-L- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 1, 10 (B.I.A. 2006); see also Shi 4 Liang Lin , 494 F.3d at 313. Impregnating one’s partner, who 5 subsequently was forcibly sterilized, is not alone an act of 6 resistance. See Shi Liang Lin , 494 F.3d at 313 (citing Ru7 Jian Zhang v. Ashcroft , 395 F.3d 531, 532 (5th Cir. 2004)). 8 Thus, contrary to Lin’s assertion, having two children in 9 violation of the family planning policy is not an act of 1 0 resistance to the family planning policy. See Shi Liang 11 Lin , 494 F.3d at 313. 1 2 Even assuming that Lin established “resistance,” the 1 3 BIA did not err in finding that he failed to allege harm 1 4 amounting to persecution on account of that resistance. See 15 id. Indeed, contrary to Lin’s assertion, he did not 1 6 demonstrate his eligibility for relief based on his claim of 1 7 economic persecution because he did not provide any evidence 1 8 establishing that the fines imposed caused him “severe 1 9 economic disadvantage.” Matter of T-Z- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 2 0 163, 170-75 (B.I.A. 2007); see also Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. 21 Dep’t. of Justice , 293 F.3d 61, 70 (2d Cir. 2002). 2 2 Likewise, Lin’s assertion that he suffered an emotional loss5 1 as a result of his wife’s forced sterilization does not 2 demonstrate that he suffered harm rising to the level of 3 persecution. See Shi Liang Lin , 494 F.3d at 309 4 (recognizing “that an individual whose spouse undergoes, or 5 is threatened with, a forced abortion or involuntary 6 sterilization may suffer a profound emotional loss as a 7 partner and a potential parent,” but does not suffer 8 persecution on account of a protected ground solely on 9 account of such forced abortion or involuntary 1 0 sterilization). 1 1 Accordingly, the agency reasonably concluded that Lin 1 2 failed to establish that he suffered any independent, 1 3 personal persecution qualifying him for relief. Id. 1 4 Moreover, Lin fails to challenge the agency’s determination 1 5 that he did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future 1 6 persecution because his only “argument” regarding this 1 7 assertion is a single conclusory sentence. See Yueqing 18 Zhang v. Gonzales , 426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 19 2 0 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 2 1 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 2 2 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 2 3 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for6 1 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 2 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 3 Circuit Local Rule 34(b). 4 FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 6 By:___________________________ 7