her membership in the China Democracy Party (“CDP”) in the United States, Lin failed to show that the Chinese government would single her out for persecution upon her return to China, or that the Chinese government has a pattern or practice of persecuting overseas members of the CDP who return to China. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir.2008). The BIA also reasonably concluded that the evidence in the record did not describe the persecution or torture of individuals similarly situated to Lin. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 128 (2d Cir.2005). Contrary to Lin’s argument, the BIA analyzed the most significant pieces of evidence in the record, and adequately indicated the basis for its decision. See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks and citations
holding the absence of any record to refute the district courts findings left the court with no choice but to sustain them holding that any inherent power to remand to the bia for the consideration of additional evidence should not be exercised where i the basis for the remand is an instruction to consider documentary evidence that was not in the record before the bia and ii the agency regulations set forth procedures to reopen a case before the bia for the taking of additional evidence holding that where the bia has given reasoned consideration to the petition and made adequate findings it need not expressly parse or refute on the record each individual argument or piece of evidence holding that an administrator need not address each piece of evidence holding that we will not review an issue or claim that was not presented to the bia in the petitioners notice of appeal or brief to the bia even if the bia considered the issue or claim sua sponte