
    WEN FA CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Respondents.
    No. 09-1644-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 11, 2010.
    Pro Se, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, Yanal Yousef, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
    PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, REENA RAGGI and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Wen Fa Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the March 26, 2009, order of the BIA, affirming the July 26, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Paul A. DeFon-zo, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Wen Fa Chen, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 26, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 26, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

Even construing his pro se brief broadly, as we must, see Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir.2006), Chen has failed to meaningfully challenge the agency’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.

The agency found that Chen did not meet his burden of establishing eligibility for relief based on the alleged persecution that his wife experienced (ie., her forced IUD insertion and forced abortion) or his own alleged “other resistance” to China’s family planning policy. In addition, the BIA found that Chen’s fear of future persecution based on his wife’s hypothetical future pregnancy was too speculative to merit relief. Chen’s brief fails to challenge these findings, touching upon them only in a single sentence, stating that he “disagree[s]” with the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions and that he “thinks the fact that [his] wife was forced to undergo an abortion ... and that the government threatened [him] with arrest due to [his] political opinion in opposition to the coercive family planning policy makes [his] asylum claim well established.”

Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal in the absence of manifest injustice. Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005). Here, no manifest injustice would result.

Indeed, even if Chen’s pro se brief could be construed to have challenged the BIA’s decision, his argument fails. With respect to his past persecution claim, Chen was not entitled to relief on account of his wife’s forced abortion. See Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir.2007) (en banc). As to Chen’s fear of future persecution, the BIA did not err in finding it impermissibly speculative to the extent it was based on the hypothetical birth of a second child in violation of Chinese law. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. Having completed our review, we DISMISS the petitioner’s pending motion for a stay of removal as moot.  