Opinion ID: 215291
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sufficiency of Yuan's Evidence

Text: To qualify for asylum or withholding of removal, an applicant must establish that he has a well-founded fear that he will be persecuted if removed to his home country on account of [, among other things,] ... political opinion. Zheng v. Att'y Gen. of the U.S., 549 F.3d 260, 266 (3d Cir.2008). [A] person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to [abort a pregnancy or undergo involuntary sterilization] or [is] subject to persecution for [failure, refusal, or resistance to undergo such a procedure] shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion. Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)) (internal quotation marks omitted). To receive asylum on account of a fear of forced sterilization, the applicant must show a reasonable likelihood that he or she will be forcibly sterilized upon repatriation. Id. To receive withholding of removal on that same basis, the applicant must make the similar but heightened showing that there is a clear probability of being forcibly sterilized upon return. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the BIA concluded that Yuan had not met her burden of showing that she was reasonably likely to be forcibly sterilized upon return to China. The BIA cited several evidentiary bases for its conclusion, including that the evidence proffered on birth control policies was stale or was irrelevant. Without recounting again all of the BIA's reasons, we note that it decided that she had failed to show she would be unable to pay any potential fine, and that her evidence of forcible sterilization was either inapposite or unauthenticated. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion and thus its decision that Yuan is not entitled to asylum. We also uphold the BIA's denial of withholding of removal and CAT protection. An applicant that fails to meet the eligibility requirements for asylum cannot meet the more stringent applicable standard for withholding of removal, Mudric v. Att'y Gen. of the U.S., 469 F.3d 94, 102 n. 8 (3d Cir.2006), as was the case here. Likewise, the evidence that is here insufficient to show eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal is also insufficient to show eligibility for CAT protection, since it does not show that Yuan is more likely than not to be tortured upon return to China. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (an alien must show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured, with the consent or acquiescence of the government, if repatriated).