
    TIAN PING CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-3102-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 15, 2011.
    
      Tina Howe, New York, N.Y., for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant Director; Ari Nazarov, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation; U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Tian Ping Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 29, 2009, decision of the BIA affirming the October 18, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy Horn, who denied Chen’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Tian Ping Chen, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 29, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 18, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008); see also Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008).

The agency did not err in finding that, even if credible, Chen did not meet his burden of proving his eligibility for relief. An individual is not per se eligible for asylum based on the forced abortion or sterilization of a spouse, Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 309-10 (2d Cir.2007) (en banc), and Chen does not argue in his brief that he fears being forcibly sterilized in the future. Thus, Chen’s sole remaining claim is that he suffered economic persecution when he was fired from his job because of “other resistance” to China’s birth control policy — his refusal to be sterilized. However, in order to constitute economic persecution, the economic harm must be “severe,” such that it would “constitute a threat to an individual’s life or freedom.” See In re T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163, 172 (BIA 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 293 F.3d 61, 67 (2d Cir.2002) (holding that in order to demonstrate economic persecution, an applicant must show at least a “deliberate imposition of a substantial economic disadvantage”). Because Chen testified that after being fired from his job at a government-owned construction company, he was able to support himself and his family through odd jobs, the agency reasonably found that Chen failed to demonstrate economic persecution. See Guan Shan Liao, 293 F.3d at 67.

Because Chen was unable to show the objective evidence of future persecution needed to make out an asylum claim, he was necessarily unable to meet the higher standard required to succeed on his withholding of removal claim. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006). As Chen does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief, any challenge to his CAT claim is waived.

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