Opinion ID: 868273
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Family Planning Claim

Text: Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Chen failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of the birth of her second child in the United States. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 163 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility that he would face forced sterilization in China based on fathering two children). As the BIA found, the State Department’s 2007 Profile of Asylum Claims indicated that there have not been any known cases in which individuals were forced to have an abortion or be forcibly sterilized upon their return from the United States. Because the agency pointed to evidence indicating that Chen’s fear of forced sterilization was not objectively reasonable and because Chen has not identified any evidence in support her position, the agency reasonably denied her application for withholding of removal based on her claimed fear of forced sterilization for having two children. See id. at 169-72. Because Chen was unable to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out a withholding of removal claim, the BIA also reasonably denied CAT relief, as both claims rested on the same factual predicate. See Paul, 444 F.3d at 156. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 5 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 6