he faces a reasonable possibility that he will be persecuted in China; however, the letter states only that the petitioner was accused of being involved in “some kind of anti community party organization” and that he would “surely receive the punishment that [was] due[ ] to him.” We cannot find that the BIA acted unreasonably in finding this letter “insufficiently detailed,” thus meriting little weight. See Xiao Ji Chen, 471 F.3d at 341-42. Moreover, while the agency did not evaluate individually each document that the petitioner submitted, we do not require the agency to “expressly parse or refute on the record each individual argument or piece of evidence offered.” Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir.2006) (internal citations omitted); cf. Xiao Ji Chen, 471 F.3d at 336 (<HOLDING>). Finally, we find no merit in the petitioner’s
holding that an administrator need not address each piece of evidence holding that assertions of privilege must normally be raised as to each record sought and each question asked so that  the court can rule with specificity holding that the court should make factual findings from the record evidence as if it were conducting a trial on the record holding that this court does not require the ij to engage in robotic incantations to show that the ij examined each piece of evidence in the record as long as the ij takes into account significant factual assertions offered by a petitioner holding that the bia is not required to expressly parse or refute on the record each individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the petitioner as long as it has given reasoned consideration to the petition and made adequate findings