
    Isabel LOPEZ-RAMIREZ; Dubia Maribel Martinez Lopez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72845.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Dec. 28, 2012.
    Charles E. Nichol, Law Offices of Charles E. Nichol, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Matthew B. George, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Katherine Ann Smith, Trial DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Isabel Lopez-Ramirez and Dubia Maribel Martinez Lopez, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Contrary to Lopez-Ramirez’s contention, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the incident in which she was hit on the head with a gun did not rise to the level of persecution. See id. at 1020. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Lopez-Ramirez failed to establish a nexus between her past experiences, or her fear of future harm, and a protected ground. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1489-91 (9th Cir.1997) (no evidence petitioner was persecuted on account of an actual or imputed political opinion). Lopez-Ramirez’s fear of future persecution is also undermined by her return trip to Guatemala. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001) (claim of persecution upon return is undermined when petitioner has returned to native country without incident). Accordingly, Lopez-Ramirez’s asylum claim fails.

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