SUMMARY ORDER

Chang Tan Zou-Ye, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 20, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the July 25, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Bridget La-Forest, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chang Tan Zour-Ye, No. A098 889 401 (B.I.A. Mar. 20, 2009), affg No. A098 889 401 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 25, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Because the BIA summarily affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008); Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007).

The IJ reasonably denied ZouYe’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal because he failed to establish that he suffered any harm as a result of his arguing with Chinese family planning authorities. See Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 309-12 (2d Cir. 2007) (en banc). We likewise uphold the IJ’s finding that Zou-Ye’s claimed well-founded fear of persecution was too speculative where it was based on Zou-Ye’s desire to have a second child in the future. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 128-29 (2d Cir. 2005).

Finally, we find no error in the IJ’s determination that Zou-Ye failed to demonstrate that he would be subject to torture based on his illegal departure from China, or that he would be treated as a political prisoner. Zou-Ye failed to provide any particularized evidence that he is likely to be subject to torture in a Chinese prison. See Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 158 (2d Cir. 2005) (requiring an applicant to present particularized evidence of the likelihood that he will be tortured in China). Therefore the IJ properly denied his application for CAT relief. 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).