
    SUN CHAE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-76444.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 24, 2010.
    Daniel K.Y. Fong, Law Offices of Daniel K.Y. Long, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC — District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Deborah A. Roy, United States Dept, of Justice Antitrust Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sun Chae, 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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we grant the petition for review and remand.

Chae testified that during her arrest by Chinese police, she was beaten, kicked to the ground, deprived of food, water and sleep, and forced to kneel for a 24-hour period. The agency concluded that the harm Chae suffered did not rise to the level of persecution. Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s conclusion. See Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir.2004) (“totality of circumstances” compelled finding of persecution where petitioner was arrested, detained for a day and a half and physically abused).

Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand Chae’s asylum claim to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

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