In his brief, Lin asserts that the documents discussed in Shou Yung Guo v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 109 (2d Cir.2006) and Tian Ming Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 468 F.3d 167 (2d Cir.2006), may provide evidence of a policy in Fujian Province of forced sterilization of Chinese nationals with two or more children, and requests that this Court remand his case accordingly. Because such an argument does not raise a constitutional claim or question of law, the Government correctly asserts that the Court lacks jurisdiction to review Lin’s petition. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2). As such, it is dismissed. To the extent Lin asks this Court to remand his case for the taking of additional evidence not in the record, we decline to do so. See Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 260, 269 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for
holding that the bia rule is reasonable 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 holding that where issues were not considered by the bia remand is appropriate holding that the bia does not abuse its discretion by giving summary consideration to evidence presented in a motion to reopen particularly when dealing with evidence which the bia is asked to repeatedly consider 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