
    Ergan LAN, aka Er Gan Lan, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-4240-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 2, 2012.
    
      Scott E. Bratton, Margaret Wong & Associates, LPA, Cleveland, OH, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director; Gladys M. Steffens Guzmán, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Present: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Ergan Lan, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a September 28, 2010, BIA decision denying his motion to reconsider. In re Ergan Lan, No. [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ] (B.I.A. Sept. 28, 2010). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir.2008); see also Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.2006).

Lan’s motion before the BIA sought reconsideration of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen, which was based on his claim that he feared persecution on account of the birth of his U.S. citizen children 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 BIA’s denial of Lan’s motion. See id. at 158-72.

The BIA did not err in finding immaterial a notice from family planning officials because it merely referenced the family planning policy’s mandatory sterilization requirement without indicating that such sterilizations are performed by force. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 165, 172. Moreover, the BIA did not err in determining that Lan failed to demonstrate a realistic chance that the imposition of fines for the birth of his children would cause him harm amounting to economic persecution because he failed to submit any evidence of his personal financial situation. See Matter of T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163, 170-75 (B.I.A.2007); see also Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep’t. of Justice, 293 F.3d 61, 70 (2d Cir.2002); Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 161-62, 164 n. 25.

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 34.1(b).  