
    Ai Di HUANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    15-615
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 27, 2016
    
      FOR PETITIONER: Zhen Liang Li, New York, New York.
    FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel; Rosanne M. Perry, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, GERARD E. LYNCH, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Ai Di Huang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 3, 2015, decision of the BIA affirming a December 13, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ai Di Huang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 3, 2015), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 13, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, 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); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

It is undisputed that Huang is not eligible for asylum solely on the basis of his wife’s forced family planning procedures. See Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 309-10 (2d Cir. 2007). Nevertheless, he can still qualify for asylum or withholding of removal by demonstrating that (1) he engaged in “resistance” to the family planning policy, and (2) he suffered harm rising to the level of persecution, or he has a well-founded fear or likelihood of suffering such harm as a direct result of his resistance. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); see also Shi Liang Lin, 494 F.3d at 313.

Even assuming that Huang was targeted for engaging in resistance to the family planning policy, he failed to establish that he suffered persecution on account of that resistance. He testified that family planning officials beat him when he refused to pay a fine. However, he did not provide any details regarding the severity of the assault or allege that he suffered any serious or lasting harm as a result. See Jian Qiu Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 820, 822 (2d Cir. 2011); see also Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 72 (2d Cir. 2011). Furthermore, Huang did not allege that the fíne imposed caused him “severe economic disadvantage” as required to demonstrate economic persecution. In re T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163, 170-75 (B.I.A. 2007); see also Huo Qiang Chen v. Holder, 773 F.3d 396, 405-06 (2d Cir. 2014); Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep’t. of Justice, 293 F.3d 61, 70 (2d Cir. 2002).

Because Huang did not demonstrate 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)(1). And he does not challenge the agency’s determination that he failed to independently demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. These findings are dispositive of both asylum and withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).

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