his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and r ligible for relief based on his wife’s forced abortion. See Shi Liang Lin, 494 F.3d at 307-08; see also Gui Yin Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716, 723 (2d Cir.2007). Moreover, as the agency noted, Ye failed to present any evidence demonstrating that he suffered a substantial economic disadvantage based on the destruction of his furniture. See Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 293 F.3d 61, 69-70 (2d Cir.2002); see also In re T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163, 171-75 (B.I.A.2007). The agency also reasonably concluded that Ye failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because his only support for that claim was his testimony that he wanted to have more children. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). II. Membership in the Chinese Democracy Party
holding that a fear of future persecution is not objectively reasonable if it lacks solid support in the record and is merely speculative at best holding that in the absence of solid support in the record for an applicants assertion that he will be persecuted his fear is speculative at best holding that in the absence of solid support in the record for an applicants assertion that she would be persecuted the bia did not err in denying asylum because her fear was speculative at best holding that absent solid support in the record that a fear is objectively reasonable a claim of future persecution is speculative at best holding that absent solid support in the record for the petitioners assertion that he would be subjected to persecution his fear was speculative at best