
    LI ZHU HE, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75750.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2008.
    
    Filed March 24, 2008.
    Fengling Liu, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Terri Leon Benner, Office of Immigration Litigation U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div., James A. Hunolt, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department Of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Li Zhu He, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying asylum and withholding of removal We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the factual findings underlying the denial of asylum and withholding, Ramos-Vasquez v. INS, 57 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir.1995), and we deny the petition for review.

The petitioner safely relocated for more than foui’ years to a province where her older sister lived and where she practiced her religion and worked without encountering further problems with the government. The petitioner also testified that besides the one incident in April 2000, her family has not been harmed. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even presuming past persecution, the government established by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner could reasonably relocate within China. See Gonzalez-Hemandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998-99 (9th Cir.2003); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(ii).

The petitioner’s motion to expedite is granted.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     