
    QIANGQIANG CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71551.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed March 2, 2012.
    
      Jisheng Li, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
    Donald Anthony Couvillon, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Director, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Honolulu, HI, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Qiangqiang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018-19 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Chen’s experiences in China, including the mistreatment he suffered during his detention and the imposition of a daily reporting requirement did not rise to the level of persecution. See id. at 1020-21. The record supports the IJ’s denial of Chen’s asylum claim, because Chen failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution in light of the fact that his similarly situated father lives in China unharmed. See Aruta v. INS, 80 F.3d 1389, 1395 (9th Cir.1996).

Because Chen did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

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