
    Dina KANG, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-72820.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2007 .
    Filed Nov. 1, 2007.
    James W. Moore, Esq., Law Offices of James W. Moore, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Earle B. Wilson, Esq., Leslie McKay Fax, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.
    
      
       Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dina Kang has appealed the denial of her asylum petition.

The evidence Kang presented does not compel a finding of past persecution. Although Kang has suffered harassment and discrimination, the adversities she has suffered do not rise to the level of “persecution.”

The evidence also does not compel a finding of well-founded fear of future persecution. Although Kang credibly testified that she subjectively genuinely feared persecution, she must also show credible, specific evidence that support a reasonable fear of persecution. To do this, Kang could show either “a pattern or practice of persecution of people similarly situated” or that she “is a member of a disfavored group coupled with a showing that she, in particular, is likely to be targeted as a member of that group.” Kang’s evidence may support a likelihood of harassment and discrimination similar to what she suffered before, but there is no evidence to show that her fear of future “persecution” is well founded.

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       jj-,¡s disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).
     
      
      . See Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir.2004).
     
      
      . See Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir.2004).
     