SUMMARY ORDER

Xue Feng Lin, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of an April 1, 2010 order of the BIA affirming the June 2, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Patricia A. Rohan, which denied Lin’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xue Feng Lin, No. A095 688 005 (B.I.A. Apr. 1, 2010), affg No. A095 688 005 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. June 2, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 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)(B); see also Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).

The agency reasonably concluded that Lin did not suffer past persecution based on her mother’s forced sterilization. See Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 308 (2d Cir. 2007) (en banc) (holding that “applicants can become candidates for asylum relief only based on persecution that they themselves have suffered or must suffer”); Shao Yan Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 417 F.3d 303, 305 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that children of people persecuted under a coercive family planning policy are not per se eligible for asylum). The agency also reasonably concluded that Lin’s experiences, including being detained for one day and being unable to register at a vocational school, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Joaquin-Porras v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 172, 182 (2d Cir. 2006) (upholding agency’s determination that applicant was not eligible for withholding of removal based on “brief’ detention after which he was released “without harm”); Ai Feng Yuan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 416 F.3d 192, 198 (2d Cir. 2005) (upholding agency’s determination that applicant had not been persecuted where applicant “was detained only briefly, and was not mistreated while in custody”), overruled on other grounds by Shi Liang Lin, 494 F.3d at 305; Damico v. INS, 430 F.3d 626, 636-37 (2d Cir. 2005) (concluding that applicant’s expulsion from university, while “not fair,” did not constitute persecution, where it did not result in “economic deprivation so severe that her life or her freedom was threatened”), vacated on other grounds and superseded by Damico v. INS, 178 Fed.Appx. 85(2nd Cir. 2006). The agency also reasonably concluded that, without a spouse or children, Lin’s claim that she fears future persecution because she is of child-bearing age *28 and wants to have children is “speculative,” and insufficient to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125,129 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that, absent solid suppoi’t in the record for the petitioner’s assertion that he would be subjected to forced sterilization, his fear was “speculative at best”).

Furthermore, the agency x'easonably determined that Lin failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or eligibility for CAT x’elief based on her illegal departure from China. See Saleh v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 962 F.2d 234, 239 (2d Cir. 1992) (“Punishment for violation of a generally applicable criminal law is not persecution.”); see also Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 159-60 (2d Cir. 2005) (evidence that some individuals who leave China illegally are imprisoned, and that human rights violations including torture occur in Chinese pxisons, is insufficient to establish a clear probability of torture for a particular illegal emigrant); Mu-Xing Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 143-4 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding relevant inquiry in determining whether a particular petitioner is eligible for CAT relief is whether someone in the petitioner’s “pax'ticular alleged circumstances” is more likely than not to be tortured).

For the foregoing x'easons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our x'eview, any stay of removal that the Coux’t px'eviously 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 ox'al ax'gument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Fedex*al Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b).