
    FEI YUN WU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-3492.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 15, 2012.
    Xin Miao, Flushing, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Jennifer Paisner Williams, Senior Litigation Counsel; Colette J. Winston, Attorney; Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JON 0. NEWMAN and PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Fei Yun Wu seeks review of an August 9, 2010, decision of the BIA, affirming the March 2, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Alan A. Vomac-ka, denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Fei Yun Wu, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 9, 2010), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 2, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). Therefore, because the BIA assumed Wu’s credibility, we do not consider his challenges to the IJ’s adverse credibility findings. Id. The applicable standards of review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir.2008).

Wu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, sought relief from removal based on his claim that he fears persecution because he has had more than one child in the United States, which they contend is in violation of China’s population control program. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the agency’s decisions. See id. at 158-72. While the petitioners in Jian Hui Shao were from Fujian Province, Wu is from Zhejiang Province. However, as with the evidence discussed in Jian Hui Shao, the evidence Wu submitted relating to Zhejiang Province is deficient either because it does not discuss forced sterilizations or because it references isolated incidents of persecution of individuals who are not similarly situated. See id. at 160-61, 171-72.

Furthermore, contrary to Wu’s contention, the agency provided a separate analysis of his CAT claim, and did not err in summarily denying that claim insofar as it was based on the same factual predicate as his asylum and withholding of removal claims or insofar as it was based on his purported illegal departure from China. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006) (recognizing that withholding of removal and CAT claims necessarily fail if the applicant is unable to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim and the factual predicate for the claims is the same); see also Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 159-60 (2d Cir.2005) (finding that a petitioner is not “entitled to CAT protection based solely on the fact that she is part of the large class of persons who have illegally departed China.”).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, Wu’s motion for a stay of removal in connection with this petition is DENIED as moot. 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).  