therefore properly denied Chen’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief insofar as they were based on his sexual orientation. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Chen’s application for CAT relief based on his claim of a likelihood of torture for having departed China illegally. Notwithstanding generalized evidence indicating that torture occurs in Chinese prisons, an applicant cannot demonstrate that he is more likely than not to be tortured “based solely on the fact that []he is part of the large class of persons who have left China illegally.” Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 159-60 (2d Cir.2005); see also Pierre v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 109, 118-19 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Because Chen provided no basis for the agency
holding that pain and suffering does not survive the death of the injured holding that beyond evidence of inhumane prison conditions a cat claimant must provide some evidence that the authorities act with the specific intent to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering on those detained recognizing as an element of pain and suffering holding that detention in squalid overcrowded cells without adequate food water sanitation exercise or medical treatment in haitian prisons does not constitute torture under cat because there is no evidence that haitian authorities have the specific intent to inflict pain or suffering recognizing as separate from pain and suffering