SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Gouyong Chen, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a June 16, 2009 order of the BIA: (1) reversing the August 22, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Vivienne E. Gordon-Uruakpa granting Chen’s application for asylum; and (2) denying Chen’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Gouyong Chen, No. A079 190 078 (B.I.A. June 16, 2009), rev’g No. A079 190 078 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 22, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review only the decision of the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).

Chen’s argument that he is eligible for asylum based solely on his wife’s involuntary abortion and sterilization is foreclosed by our decision in Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 301 (2d Cir. 2007) (en banc). Moreover, the BIA did not err in concluding that Chen’s treatment for “other resistance” to his wife’s 1995 involuntary abortion did not rise to the level of persecution. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); see also Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 340-41 (2d Cir. 2006) (collecting decisions discussing definition of persecution). Because this defect necessarily also defeats Chen’s CAT claim based on the same factual predicate, see Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006), the BIA did not err in failing separately to evaluate that claim.

Finally, we identify no error in the BIA’s determination that Chen failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on his illegal departure from China. See Qun Yang v. McElroy, 277 F.3d 158, 163 n. 5 (2d Cir. 2002) (finding that the possibility that an alien will be prosecuted under a generally applicable *551 statute does not, by itself, demonstrate that the alien has a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected ground).

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 34.1(b).