*808 SUMMARY ORDER

Gan Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 21, 2013, order of the BIA affirming the February 7, 2011, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Joanna Miller Bukszpan, denying him asylum and withholding of removal. In re Gan Lin, No. A088 785 939 (B.I.A. Mar. 21, 2013), aff'g No. A088 785 939 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 7, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We have reviewed 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) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 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 properly before us is whether Lin established a well-founded fear or likelihood of persecution on account of his alleged resistance to China’s family planning policy.

Absent past persecution, an applicant can qualify for asylum or withholding of removal by demonstrating that: (1) he engaged in “other resistance” to the family planning policy; and (2) he has a well-founded fear or likelihood of suffering persecution on account of that resistance. See Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 313 (2d Cir. 2007); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b). Lin failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his resistance to the family planning policy.

As the agency found, even assuming. that Lin’s assault of a family planning officer constituted resistance to the family planning policy, he failed to demonstrate that his fear of persecution was objectively reasonable. Lin provided no evidence that individuals arrested for resisting the family planning policy face mistreatment in detention, much less harm rising to the level of persecution. “In the absence of solid support in the record for [an applicant’s] assertion that he will be subjected to [persecution], his fear is speculative at best.” Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we find no error in the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. See id.; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (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).