
    ZHONGFENG GUO, AKA Zhong Feng Guo, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    15-4180
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    August 31, 2017
    
      Appearing for Petitioner: H. Danny Kao, Kao & Associates, PC, Flushing, NY.
    Appearing for Respondent: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director; David Schor, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
    Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges. BRIAN M. COGAN, District Judge.
    
      
      . Judge Brian M. Cogan, United States- District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Zhongfeng Guo, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 2, 2015 decision of the BIA affirming a March 10, 2014 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied Guo’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhongfeng Guo, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Dec. 2, 2015), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. Hartford Mar. 10, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

We have reviewed the decisions of the IJ and the BIA “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland See., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The' applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013). “[T]o establish a well-founded fear of persecution in the absence of any evidence of past persecution, an alien must make some showing that authorities in his or her country of nationality are either aware of his or her activities or likely to become aware of his or her activities.” Y.C., 741 F.3d at 332 (brackets omitted) (quoting Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008)). The fear must be objectively reasonable and have “solid support” in the record. Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005); Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). We find no error in the agency’s determination that Guo failed to satisfy this requirement.

The agency reasonably declined to credit an unsworn letter from Guo’s father asserting that officials in China were aware of Guo’s involvement with the China Democracy Party in the United States. See Y.C., 741 F.3d at 334. And Guo’s argument that Chinese officials would become aware of his online articles or photographs of his participation in political demonstrations in the United States was too speculative given the lack of evidence of persecution of others who engaged solely in activities in the United States. Id. at 333-34, 336-37; Jian Xing Huang, 421 F.3d at 129. Finally, the agency reasonably concluded that Guo was not similarly situated to Chinese dissidents who face persecution: although the 2012 State Department Report documented the detention and mistreatment of dissidents active in China, Guo did not present any evidence that Chinese authorities arrest those who engage in pro-democracy activities abroad. See Y.C., 741 F.3d at 334-37.

Because Guo failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of persecution based on reliable evidence, the agency did not err in denying asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief. See Y.C., 741 F.3d at 335 (holding that alien who did not meet the burden of proof for asylum also failed to meet the higher burdens of proof for withholding of removal and CAT relief).

For the foregoing reasons, Guo’s petition for review is DENIED.  