
    MEIXIANG CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-2663.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 3, 2014.
    Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Leslie McKay, Assistant Direcor; Ilissa M. Gould, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Present: JON O. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

Meixiang Chen, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a June 13, 2013, decision of the BIA, affirming the July 18, 2012, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Mary Cheng, denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Meixiang Chen, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 13, 2013), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 18, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 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) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 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).

Chen applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based, in part, on his claim that he fears persecution because he has had more than one child 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 determination that Chen failed to demonstrate his eligibility for relief on that ground. See id. at 158-72.

We also find no error in the agency’s determination that Chen failed to demonstrate his eligibility for relief based on his religion. The evidence Chen submitted did not demonstrate that Chinese authorities are aware of, or likely to become aware of, his religious practice. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir.2008).

For the foregoing reasons, this 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).  