NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NANNAN YANG,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 71913 Agency No. A087

- 718

- 634

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 14, 2020 * *
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Nannan Yang , a native and citizen of China , petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigrati on Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum , withholding of
removal , and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) . We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for su bstantial evidence the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 21 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 15

- 71913

agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Yang failed to
establish she suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution

. See Gu v. Gonzales , 454 F.3d 1014, 1019

- 21 (9th Cir. 2006) (detention, beating, and interrogation did not compel a finding of past persecution) ; see also Wakkary v.
Holder , 558 F.3d 1049, 10 59

- 60 (9th Cir. 2009) (beating s, robberies, and
discrimination did not cumulatively rise to the level of persecution) . Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Yang did not establish a
well

- founded fear of future persecution. See Duran

- Rodriguez v. Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Absent evidence of past persecution, [petitioner] must
establish a well

- founded fear of future persecution by showing both a su bjective fear of future persecution, as well as an objectively ‘reasonable possibility’ of persecution upon return to the country in question.”) (quoting Recinos De Leon v. Gonzales , 400 F.3d 1185, 1190 (9th Cir. 2005) ) ; see also Gu , 454 F.3d at 1022 (peti tioner failed to present “compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well

founded fear of persecution”). Thus, Yang ’s asylum claim fails. Because Yang failed, for purposes of asylum, to establish past harm severe enough to rise to a level of past pers ecution or to establish a well

- founded fear of such harm in the future, she necessarily fails to meet the more stringent standard3 15

- 71913

required for withholding of removal

. See Zehatye , 453 F.3d at 1190 (recognizing that the withholding of removal requirement t o show a “clear probability” of persecution is “more stringent than the well

- founded fear standard governing asylum.”)

. Finally, s ubstantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Yang failed to show it is more likely than not she wi ll be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China

. See Aden
v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
.