application, making an entirely different claim. Reviewing the BIA’s interpretation of the statute for reasonableness, see Maghradze v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 150, 152 (2d Cir.2006); Kuhali v. Reno, 266 F.3d 93, 102 (2d Cir.2001), we affirm the agency’s conclusion that because Lin’s 1993 application was never properly filed, August 2005 is the relevant filing date, and the REAL ID Act applies. We further conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Lin failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution, ie., “a subjective fear that is objectively reasonable,” Shi Jie Ge v. Holder, 588 F.3d 90, 94 (2d Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted), on account of his having fathered two children, see Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); see also Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d
holding that in the absence of solid support in the record for an applicants assertion that she would be persecuted the bia did not err in denying asylum because her fear was speculative at best holding that an applicants wellfounded fear claim was speculative at best when he failed to present solid support that he would be persecuted for violating family planning policy upon his return to china 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 holding that absent solid support in the record for the petitioners assertion that he would be persecuted his fear was speculative at best holding that in the absence of solid support in the record for an applicants assertion that he will be persecuted his fear is speculative at best