
    RUI XIN LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-3187-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 29, 2010.
    
      Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, NJ, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle G. Latour, Assistant Director, Nairi M. Simonian, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: PETER W. HALL, GERARD E. LYNCH, and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Rui Xin Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 29, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the November 7, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Vivienne E. Gordon-Uruakpa, denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Rui Xin Lin, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 29, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 7, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA decision. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

The agency properly held that Lin was not eligible, as a matter of law, for the relief he sought based on his wife’s forced sterilization. See Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir.2007); see also Gui Yin Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716, 723 (2d Cir.2007).

The BIA also reasonably concluded that Lin failed to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of any “other resistance” to China’s family planning policy. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). As the BIA observed, Lin was already in the United States when his wife was allegedly sterilized. Furthermore, to the extent Lin claims that he suffered past persecution because he is “not being allowed to enjoy the basic human right of procreating with his wife,” that claim fails under our decision in Shi Liang Lin, 494 F.3d at 309 (recognizing “that an individual whose spouse undergoes, or is threatened with, a forced abortion or involuntary sterilization may suffer a profound emotional loss as a partner and a potential parent,” but does not suffer persecution on account of a protected ground solely on account of such forced abortion or involuntary sterilization).

We also find no error in the BIA’s conclusion that Lin failed to demonstrate that he suffered a substantial economic disadvantage because a 7,600 RMB fine was levied against him after he had arrived in this country. See Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 293 F.3d 61, 69-70 (2d Cir.2002); see also Matter of T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163, 171-175 (BIA 2007). Contrary to Lin’s argument that the BIA improperly engaged in de novo review of his economic persecution claim, the BIA was entitled to find that, as a matter of law, he did not meet his burden to demonstrate persecution. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 162 (2d Cir.2008); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3).

Because Lin failed to demonstrate that he suffei’ed past persecution, he was not entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b). The BIA did not err in finding that Lin failed to prove a reasonable possibility of future persecution in the absence of any record evidence to support such a claim. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir.2005).

Because Lin was unable to meet his burden of proof for asylum, his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006). Lin has abandoned any challenge to the IJ’s denial of his CAT claim.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. 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. 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).  