Case Name: JIANGUANG WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-29
Citations: 576 F. App'x 674
Docket Number: No. 13-70809
Parties: JIANGUANG WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CLIFTON, BEA and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 576
Pages: 674–675

Head Matter:
JIANGUANG WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-70809.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2014.
Filed May 29, 2014.
Jisheng Li, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
Oil, Tiffany L. Walters, Trial, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CLIFTON, BEA and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jianguang Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that the police's mistreatment of Wang during his arrest, the detention of Wang and his parents, the fíne they paid, and the warnings about future gatherings do not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir.2006) (brief detention, beating and interrogation did not compel finding of past persecution); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir.1995) ("Although a reasonable factfinder could have found [these incidents constituted] past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder would be compelled to do so.") (emphasis in original). We reject Wang's argument that he was "prohibited from practicing his religion."
Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that Wang failed to demonstrate a well founded fear of future persecution based on one incident he suffered in 2005, because his parents, who are leaders in the church, have remained active and have not described any problems. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001) ("[a]n applicant's claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without incident"), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2007). Thus, Wang's asylum claim fails.
Because Wang failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.