
    YIE LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-440.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 26, 2014.
    Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, NJ, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director; Theodore C. Hirt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Yie Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 11, 2012, decision of the BIA affirming an April 14, 2011, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yie Lin, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 11, 2012), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 14, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review 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). 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).

Lin asserted eligibility for asylum based on fines imposed for his violation of the family planning policy and his wife’s forced sterilization. The agency reasonably rejected Lin’s past persecution claim. Lin cannot claim past persecution based on his wife’s forced sterilization. See Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 309-10 (2d Cir.2007) (holding that applicant is not eligible for asylum based on forcible sterilization undergone by spouse; emotional loss individual may suffer following spouse’s involuntary sterilization does not constitute persecution). The IJ also reasonably concluded that the fines did not rise to the level of persecution because Lin failed to provide any evidence establishing that the fines caused him “severe economic disadvantage.” Matter of T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163, 170-75 (BIA 2007); see also Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep’t. of Justice, 293 F.3d 61, 70 (2d Cir.2002).

Contrary to Lin’s argument, the IJ applied the correct standard of review in analyzing his fear of future persecution based on his Falun Gong practice. Although the BIA did not parse Lin’s argument, remand for consideration of this argument is futile. The IJ did not, as Lin contends, improperly hold Lin to a higher burden of proof. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 150 (2d Cir.2008) (finding that remand is futile when the Court can confidently “predict that the agency would reach the same decision absent the errors that were made” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Nor did the agency err in concluding that Lin failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his practice of Falun Gong. Given his testimony that he would only practice Falun Gong within his own home, Lin did not demonstrate “that authorities in [China] are either aware of his activities or likely to become aware of his activities.” Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir.2008).

Because Lin was unable to show the objective fear of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim, he was also unable to meet the higher standard required to succeed on a claim for withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119-20 (2d Cir.2010) (“Withholding of removal and CAT relief entail a greater likelihood of future persecution than that required for the grant of asylum.”).

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