
    JING HE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70364.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2018.
    
    Filed Sept. 30, 2013.
    Thomas Ogden, Law Offices of Thomas Ogden, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
    Bernard Joseph, 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: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). He’s request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jing He, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Even if He testified credibly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that He failed to establish past persecution, see Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020-21 (9th Cir.2006) (petitioner did not suffer past persecution when he was detained for 15 days and beaten on one occasion, did not need medical attention, and did not suffer adverse employment consequences), and the agency’s finding that He does not have an objective, well-founded fear of future persecution, see Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2000) (in the absence of a presumption of a well-founded future fear, the petitioner needs credible, direct, and specific evidence that would support a reasonable fear of persecution). Accordingly, He’s asylum claim fails.

Because He failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows that she has not met the higher 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     