Case Name: ERFU WU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-03
Citations: 559 F. App'x 632
Docket Number: No. 12-73119
Parties: ERFU WU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and-FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 559
Pages: 632–632

Head Matter:
ERFU WU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-73119.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
Filed March 3, 2014.
Jisheng Li, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
Kathryn McKinney, OIL, 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: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and-FERNANDEZ, 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
Erfu Wu, a native and citizen China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.
Wu testified he was arrested at a house church service, detained for five days, and monitored by village cadres, but that he was not harmed and continued to attend the house church until he left China. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that these incidents did not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir.2006) (no past persecution although member of Christian house church was arrested and detained for three days, interrogated, beaten with a rod, and required to report to the police). Thus, contrary to Wu's contention, he is not entitled to a presumption of a well-founded future fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA's determination that Wu failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See id. (fear of future harm too speculative). Accordingly, Wu's asylum claim fails.
Because Wu has not established eligibility for asylum, he necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.