SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Ming Li Ma, a native and’ citizen of China, seeks review of the June 3, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the August 3, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams denying.' his application for asylum, withholding of 1 removal, and relief under the Convention . Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ming Li. Ma, No. A094 800 782 (B.I.A. June 3, 2009), ajfg No. A094 800 782 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 3, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA, see Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005), and apply the “substantial evidence” standard of review, under which we uphold the agency’s factual findings so long as they are supported by “reasonable, substantial and probative evidence in the record.” Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

The BIA reasonably concluded that, even assuming Ma’s actions ensuring that his children were born in separate hospitals and hiding with his wife constituted “other resistance” to the Chinese family planning policy, see Shi Liang Lin v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 296, 301 (2d Cir. 2007), he failed to demonstrate that the alleged persecution he endured, (ie., a 20,000 RMB fine) was on account of those actions, rather than simply because of the family’s violation of the one-child policy. See id. at 312-13. In his brief, Ma asserts that his actions allowed his wife to give birth to three children, which, in turn, caused the couple to violate the policy and be fined. However, the BIA reasonably declined to find that Ma was persecuted on account of his efforts to evade detection, rather than on account of the violation itself, because he offered no evidence demonstrating that family planning officials were even aware of those actions, let alone that he was fined because of them. See id.

Because the BIA reasonably found that Ma did not establish past persecution, it properly denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request *272 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).