
    Nuan LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric J. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-0782-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 15, 2010.
    G. Victoria Calle, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director; David Schor, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROBERTA. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Nuan Lin, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a January 29, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the September 21, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Noel Brennan, which denied her application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lin, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Jan. 29, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 21, 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, this Court reviews the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 288-89 (2d Cir.2007); Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Lin’s application for CAT relief. In the absence of any particularized evidence, an applicant cannot demonstrate that she is more likely than not to be tortured “based solely on the fact that she is part of the large class of persons who have left China illegally” and on generalized evidence indicating that torture occurs in Chinese prisons. Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 159-60 (2d Cir.2005).

While Lin argues that her testimony expressing a general fear of being punished for her illegal departure combined with background evidence attesting to the increasing prevalence of torture in China should suffice to establish that she will more likely than not be tortured if removed to China, this evidence does not demonstrate that someone in her “particular alleged circumstances,” is likely to face torture. See Mu-Xing Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 143-44 (2d Cir.2003). Therefore, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that she failed to establish eligibility for CAT relief. See Pierre v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 109, 121 (2d Cir.2007) (holding that beyond evidence of inhumane prison conditions, a CAT claimant must provide some evidence that the authorities act with the specific intent to inflict physical or mental pain or suffering on those detained).

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(b).  