
    Xiao Qin ZOU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-74065.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Dec. 18, 2003.
    
      Helen Wang, Esq., Attorney at Law, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wernery, Esq., William C. Minick, DO J-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Xiao Qin Zou, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). Where, as here, the BIA affirms the IJ’s decision without opinion, we review the decision of the IJ. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.2003). We review for substantial evidence, Wang v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 1015, 1019-20 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition.

Zou’s claims for relief are based on her mother being forcibly sterilized and fined for violating China’s “one child” policy. Because Zou presented no evidence that she herself was persecuted or would be persecuted, beyond her stated intention to violate the “one child” policy, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision. Cf. Wang, 341 F.3d at 1021 (concluding that petitioner had a well founded fear of persecution where she had been forced to have abortions and use contraceptives).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     