Fuzhen Wang v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FUZHEN WANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71945
Agency No. A075-734-108
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
JUL 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-71945 2
§ 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.

-- 2 of 2 --