SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Yong Fu Lin, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for *79review of the May 4, 2006 BIA order affirming the December 8, 2004 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Joanna Miller Bukszpan denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. In re Yong Fu Lin, No. A 97 976 673 (B.I.A. May 4, 2006), aff'g No. A 97 976 673 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 8, 2004). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

When the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ and supplements the IJ’s decision, this Court reviews the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Bhanot v. Chertoff, 474 F.3d 71, 72 (2d Cir. 2007). This Court reviews the agency’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 306-07 (2d Cir. 2003).

Lin claims that the IJ erred in pretermitting his asylum application because the agency read a documentary corroboration requirement into 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D), thereby placing a higher burden on him to establish that the filing of his asylum application was timely. However, we need not reach this claim because Lin is not eligible for either asylum or withholding of removal for past persecution as the spouse of someone forcibly sterilized.1 We are bound by our recent en banc decision in Ski Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 2007 WL 2032066 (2d Cir. July 16, 2007) (en banc), which held that an individual, like Lin,2 whose spouse has been forced to undergo involuntary sterilization does not automatically qualify for asylum as a refugee under § 601(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) (amending 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 101(a)(42)).3 Because Lin’s application was based solely on his wife’s forced sterilization, and not on any “other resistance to a coercive population control program,” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B), Lin has not, as a matter of law, established past persecution under Shi Liang Lin and is thus not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. Accordingly, we need not review the IJ’s finding that petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof to establish eligibility for *80relief. For the reasons above, the petition for review is DENIED.