Case Name: Jun CHENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-15
Citations: 583 F. App'x 655
Docket Number: No. 10-73288
Parties: Jun CHENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 655–656

Head Matter:
Jun CHENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73288.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 11, 2014.
Filed July 15, 2014.
Maria Christina Flores, Law Office of Maria Flores, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.
Oil, Tiffany L. Walters, Trial, 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: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and RAWLINSON, 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
Jun Cheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals denial of asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1), and deny the petition for review.
The agency's adverse credibility finding is supported by several instances of Cheng's significant inconsistent testimony regarding the events underlying her claim. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1046-47 (9th Cir.2010).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's alternative finding that, even if Cheng's testimony were deemed to be credible, Cheng did not establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Cheng's single overnight detention and her husband's rough treatment, after which they were released unharmed, did not rise to the level of persecution. Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir.2006). Similarly, the agency's finding that Cheng does not have an objective fear of future persecution on account of political opinion is supported by Cheng's testimony that her similarly situated husband has remained in China without further detention or arrest. Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2007). Nor is there evidence in the record that would compel a conclusion that Cheng has an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution on account of her recent conversion to Christianity.
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.