Wang was not entitled to asylum based solely on his wife’s alleged forced abortion, regardless of their marital status. Id. Moreover, Wang does not allege, nor is there any indication in the record, that he was persecuted for his own resistance to a coercive population control program. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B). Even if Wang had refused to pay the fine out of opposition to China’s birth control policy and that act was considered an attempt to “interfere with enforcement of government policy,” he failed to establish that any consequences of his actions rose or would rise to the level of persecution. See Matter of S-L-L- 24 I. & N. Dec. 1, 10 (BIA 2006); see also Matter of T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163, 169 (BIA 2007); Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Further, Wang has not argued or alleged any
holding that harm must be sufficiently severe and rise above mere harassment holding that harm must be sufficiently severe rising above mere harassment to constitute persecution holding that to constitute persecution the harm must rise above mere harassment holding that to constitute persecution the harm must be sufficiently severe rising above mere harassment holding that to constitute persecution harm must be more than harassment