Case Name: CUN FENG YIANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-11
Citations: 362 F. App'x 598
Docket Number: No. 06-75780
Parties: CUN FENG YIANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 598–598

Head Matter:
CUN FENG YIANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75780.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 11, 2010.
Jisheng Li, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Kathleen
Kelly Volkert, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Cun Feng Yiang, 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, Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that the single arrest and fine Yiang suffered did not amount to past persecution. See id. at 1019-21, see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA's finding that Yiang failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear* of persecution because his fear of future persecution is not objectively reasonable. See Gu, 454 F.3d at 1021-22.
Because Yiang failed to establish eligibility for asylum he necessarily failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. 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.