Case Name: Gen LIN, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-04
Citations: 151 F. App'x 104
Docket Number: No. 03-40940-AG
Parties: Gen LIN, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: LEVAL, STRAUB, and HALL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 151
Pages: 104–105

Head Matter:
Gen LIN, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Respondent.
No. 03-40940-AG.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Nov. 4, 2005.
Ramesh K. Shrestha, New York, New York, for Appellant.
Michael J. Butler, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Thomas A. Marino, United States Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, on the brief), Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee.
PRESENT: LEVAL, STRAUB, and HALL, Circuit Judges.
. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is automatically substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as a respondent in this case.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the decision of the BIA be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
Gen Lin, through counsel, petitions for review of the BIA decision affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
This Court reviews an the BIA's factual findings under the substantial evidence standard, and as such, "a finding will stand if it is supported by 'reasonable, substantial, and probative' evidence in the record when considered as a whole." Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir.2003) (quoting Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 287 (2d Cir.2000)). The same standard of review applies to the denial of withholding of removal under the INA and the CAT. See Melendez v. United States Dep't of Justice, 926 F.2d 211, 218 (2d Cir.1991).
In this case, the BIA's eligibility determination was supported by the record as a whole. The BIA correctly pointed out that Lin had presented no evidence sufficient to demonstrate the requisite fear of persecu tion based on any of the grounds enumerated in the INA.