NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ZHENFA DU, No. 14-72478 Petitioner, Agency No. A087-808-712 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 21, 2019** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Zhenfa Du, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that even if Du were assumed to be credible, the harm Du suffered in China did not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d, 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (brief detention, beating and interrogation did not compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Du did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See id. at 1022 (petitioner failed to present “compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well- founded fear of persecution”). Thus, his asylum claim fails.

In this case, because Du failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Du failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 14-72478