or a well-founded fear of future persecution. As the BIA determined, Thang is not eligible, as a matter of law, for asylum based on his wife’s forced abortion. See Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t. of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 308 (2d Cir.2007) (en banc); see also Gui Yin Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716, 723 (2d Cir.2007). As Thang did not assert any other incidents of past persecution, he was not entitled to the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Thang failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution because he and his wife wanted more children. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 158-68 (2d Cir.2008); see also Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, the BIA reasonably found that whether
holding that absent past persecution an alien can demonstrate eligibility for asylum based on a wellfounded fear of future persecution by demonstrating that he or she subjectively fears persecution and that this fear is objectively reasonable holding that the asylum standard for past persecution or wellfounded fear of future persecution is lower than the clear probability standard to show eligibility for withholding of removal holding that to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution an applicant must establish that he would be singled out for persecution or that there was a pattern or practice of persecution of similarlysituated individuals holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution holding that to qualify for asylum the fear of future persecution must be based on reasonably specific information showing a real threat to individual persecution not mere assertions of fear of possible persecution or speculative conclusions quoting mapouya 487 f3d at 412