SUMMARY ORDER

Jian Hua Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 11, 2010, decision of the BIA affirming the July 25, 2005, decision of immigration judge (“IJ”) William F, Jankun. In re Jian Hua Zhang, No. A077 922 005 (B.I.A. June 11, 2010), affg No. A077 922 005 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 25, 2005). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of 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). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

The only issue we need consider is whether the BIA erred in finding that Zhang, presumed credible and presumed to have timely filed his asylum application, failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. 1 Substantial evidence supports that determination.

In concluding that Zhang failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution for having distributed Christian pamphlets, the BIA reasonably relied on the fact that Zhang presented no testimony or documentary evidence that authorities remained interested in pursuing him for his distribution of Christian pamphlets more than five years prior to the conclusion of his removal proceedings. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (“In the absence of solid support in the record for [petitioner’s] assertion that he will be subjected to [persecution], his fear is speculative at best”). Moreover, insofar as Zhang asserted a fear of persecution on account of his Christian faith alone, the BIA reasonably relied on the fact that Zhang’s Christian brother remained unharmed in China to discount that claimed fear. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999). Accordingly, because the BIA reasonably found that Zhang failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution, it did not err in denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. 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 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).