
    Yulia Valerievna TIKHOMIROVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72099.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 17, 2012.
    
    Filed April 24, 2012.
    Patrick Joseph Sandoval, Esquire, Gallagher Sandoval, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jesse David Lorenz, Esquire, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yulia Valerievna Tikhomirova, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying her 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, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we review de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Tikhomirova’s nonviolent encounter with a police officer trying to fabricate a criminal charge against her father does not rise to the level of persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995) (minor physical abuse during a single detention did not compel finding of past persecution); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003) (harassment, threats, and one beating unconnected with any particular threat did not compel finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that Tikhomirova failed to established a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (possibility of future persecution too speculative); see also Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001) (“An applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without incident.”). Accordingly, Tikhomirova’s asylum claim fails.

Because Tikhomirova failed to establish her eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Further, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because Tikhomirova failed to show that it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Russia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

Finally, because Tikhomirova was given a full and fair hearing on her claims and a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, we reject her due process claims. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

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