Case Name: Fuzhen 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: 2010-07-07
Citations: 386 F. App'x 660
Docket Number: No. 07-71945
Parties: Fuzhen WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 386
Pages: 660–660

Head Matter:
Fuzhen WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71945.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 7, 2010.
Melanie M. Yang, Esq., Law Offices of Melanie M. Yang, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.
District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Fuzhen Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming the immigration judge's denial of withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 338-39 (9th Cir.1995). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that the harms Wang experienced during her single arrest did not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020-21 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that the petitioner had not established past persecution when the petitioner had been held for three days, interrogated, and struck with a rod ten times). Similarly, the BIA's determination that Wang did not demonstrate a clear probability of future persecution is supported by substantial evidence because Wang points to no evidence that indicates she is more likely than not to face persecution if she returns to China. See Prasad, 47 F.3d at 339—40.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.