SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Ying Zhu Chen seeks review of a January 27, 2011, decision of the BIA affirming the February 3, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Philip Verrillo, pretermitting as untimely her application for asylum, and alternatively denying that form of relief, as well as withholding of removal, on the merits. In re Ying Zhu Chen, No. A078 729 843 (B.I.A. Jan. 27, 2011), aff'g No. A078 729 843 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Feb. 3, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).

Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, sought relief from removal based on her claim that she fears persecution because she would like to have more than one child in the future in violation of China’s population control program. As an initial matter, we need not reach Chen’s challenges to the agency’s preter-mission of her asylum application as untimely because the agency’s alternative denial of that form of relief was dispositive of her claim.

The agency did not err in finding speculative Chen’s claim that she might have more children in the future giving rise to a well-founded fear of persecution. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005). Moreover, for largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d 138, we find no error in the agency’s determination that Chen failed to demonstrate that her fear of forced sterilization was objectively reasonable. See id. at 158-72. While the petitioners in Jian Hui Shao were from Fujian Province, Chen is from Guangdong Province. However, as with the evidence discussed in Jian Hui Shao, the evidence Chen submitted relating to Guangdong Province is deficient because either it does not discuss forced sterilizations or it references isolated incidents of persecution of individuals who are not similarly situated. See id. at 160-61,171-72.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, 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).