to forced sterilization or other harm rising to the level of persecution. See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 274-275 (2d Cir.2006) (affirming the BIA’s summary consideration and rejection of the “oft-cited Aird affidavit, which the BIA is asked to consider time and again,” as evidence that Chinese citizen parents of foreign born children have an objective fear of forced sterilization or abortions). Likewise, the BIA properly found that Chen’s relatives’ letters, which she had submitted to the IJ prior to her merits hearing, did not provide evidence that she would be persecuted if removed to China where the letters detailed the forced abortion and sterilization of individuals who, unlike Chen, had children born in China. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, as the BIA properly considered
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 solid support in the record for the petitioners assertion that he would be subjected to persecution his fear was speculative at best 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 absent solid support in the record for the petitioners assertion that he would be subjected to persecution in china because of his desire to have more children his fear was speculative at best recognizing that objective reasonableness entails a showing that a reasonable person in the petitioners circumstances would fear persecution if returned to his native country