Case Name: Cai-Xia HE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-09
Citations: 114 F. App'x 857
Docket Number: No. 03-72397
Parties: Cai-Xia HE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 857–858

Head Matter:
Cai-Xia HE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-72397.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 9, 2004.
Jisheng Li, Esq., Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, William C. Peachey, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Cai-Xia He, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of the immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
Even assuming petitioner's testimony was credible, substantial evidence supports the IJ's conclusion that her seven-day detention by government officials without physical abuse did not establish eligibility for asylum relief. See Al-Saher v. INS, 268 F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th Cir.2001).
Because petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See id.
The IJ properly denied relief under CAT because petitioner failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if removed to China. See Malhi v. INS, 386 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.