SUMMARY ORDER

Wei Hua Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 9, 2009, order of the BIA affirming immigration judge (“IJ”) Dorothy Harbeck’s July 17, 2007, denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Wei Hua Wang, No. A094 041 894 (B.I.A. June 9, 2009), aff'g No. A094 041 894 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 17, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decision. See 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); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

The BIA did not err in finding that Wang failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of persecution in China on account of the birth of her two U.S. citizen *563 children. Wang’s arguments are foreclosed by our decision in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008). Contrary to Wang’s contention, the BIA did not err in finding that letters she submitted from her sister and sister-in-law were not material to her case because they did not detail the forced sterilizations of similarly situated individuals, i.e., Chinese nationals returning to China with U.S. citizen children. See id. at 160-61, 170-71. The BIA also did not err by summarily considering the evidence in the record or the documents at issue in Jian Hui Shao. See id. at 169; see also Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that while the BIA must consider evidence such as “the oft-cited Aird affidavit, which [it] is asked to consider time and again[,] ... it may do so in summary fashion without a reviewing court presuming that it has abused its discretion”).

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).