
    DECHAO MA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-73452.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2016.
    
    Filed April 19, 2016.
    Dechao Ma, Gabriel, CA, pro se.
    Tim Ramnitz, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, .San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, 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

Dechao Ma, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), We deny the petition for review.'

We do not consider the materials Ma references in his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Ma did not establish that his past harm rose to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1021 (9th Cir.2006) (brief detention, beating, and interrogation did not compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Ma did not establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See id. at 1022. Thus, Ma’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Ma’s CAT claim. He failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured- if returned to China. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

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