
    JIE MIAO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-71323
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted February 9, 2018 Pasadena, California
    Filed February 27, 2018
    Steve Xiao Ming Luan, Law Offices of Steve Luan, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner
    Jeremy M. Bylund, Trial Attorney, Matthew Albert Connelly, Trial Attorney, Katharine Clark, Esquire, Trial Attorney, 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, for Respondent
    Before: GRABER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, District Judge.
    
      
      
         The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jie Miao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and deny the petition.

1. The BIA’s determination that Miao did not suffer past persecution was supported by substantial evidence. The treatment received by Miao during her detention after being arrested at a house church, while perhaps harsh, does not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018, 1021 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that a petitioner who was detained for multiple days, hit with a rod ten times, and forced to sign a letter admitting he had “done wrong” and to report weekly to the police had not been persecuted). Miao also claims that she lost her job, but provided no evidence of its importance to her economic wellbeing. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that “mere economic disadvantage alone” does not constitute persecution (quoting Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2004))).

2. Substantial evidence also supported the BIA’s determination that Miao did not carry her burden of establishing a well-founded fear of future persecution. The 2009 State Department Report for China states that the “freedom to participate in religious activities continued to increase in many areas,” although notes that the Chinese “government continued to strictly control religious practice and repress religious activity outside government-sanctioned organizations and registered places of worship,” and that house churches continue to face increased interference “in periods preceding sensitive anniversaries.” But, the incidents involving churches detailed in the Report only involved harassment of church leaders, not congregants like Miao.

DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     