
    FENG LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-1934-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 21, 2010.
    Dehai Zhang, Flushing, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Edward E. Wiggers, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, JOSÉ A. CABRANES and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Feng Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the April 15, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the November 21, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) George T. Chew denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Feng Lin, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 15, 2009), aff 'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 21, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

We have previously determined that, under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), an individual is not per se eligible for asylum based on the forced abortion or sterilization of a spouse or partner. Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 308 (2d Cir.2007). Rather, “applicants can become candidates for asylum relief only based on persecution that they themselves have suffered or must suffer.” Id.; see also Matter of J-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 520 (BIA 2008). Here, because Lin’s claim was based entirely on his wife’s forced abortion and IUD procedure, the agency denied his claims, relying on Shi Liang Lin and Matter of J-S-.

Contrary to Lin’s argument, the BIA’s retroactive application of Shi Liang Lin and Matter of J-S- to his claims did not violate his due process rights. See Shou Wei Jin v. Holder, 572 F.3d 392, 397 (7th Cir.2009); Yu v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 568 F.3d 1328, 1333 (11th Cir.2009). As, the BIA stated, it applies the law in effect at the time it enters a decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii); c.f. NLRB v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 55 F.3d 74, 78 (2d Cir.1995)(“Appellate courts ordinarily apply the law in effect at the time of the appellate decision”).

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). As before the BIA, Lin fails to challenge the denial of his CAT claim, abandoning any such argument. See Gui Yin Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716, 723 n. 6 (2d Cir.2007).

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(b).  