the IJ interceded to elicit testimony from Zheng about his distribution of the Falun Gong flyers, stating that he didn’t find “what happened to [Zheng’s] father” to be particularly relevant to Zheng’s asylum claim. [JA 78] Thereafter, however, the IJ specifically inquired from Zheng’s attorney whether Zheng had anything else to put into the record, to which she replied, “No, that’s it, Your Honor.” [JA 93] The record thus does not reflect that Zheng in any way objected to the IJ’s focus on the Falun Gong allegations or that he attempted to alert the IJ of the need to develop further testimony. The BIA properly found that Zheng did not meet the criteria of a refugee based on his mother’s forced sterilization. See Shao Yan Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 417 F.3d 303, 305 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for
holding that the spouse of a direct victim of a forced abortions or sterilization is per se eligible for asylum holding that constructive amendments which are per se reversible under harmless error analysis are also per se reversible under plain error analysis holding expert testimony is not required as a per se rule  in bad faith actions holding that children of individuals directly victimized by family planning policies are not per se as eligible for relief  as those directly victimized themselves holding such agreements to be per se illegal