
    PING JIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73473.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed March 2, 2012.
    
      Ping Jin, Baldwin Park, CA, pro se.
    Andrea Gevas, Oil, Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, 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

Ping Jin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even if credible, Jin did not establish past persecution because the detention and physical abuse Jin experienced in China did not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir.2006). In addition, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Jin’s fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable. See id. at 1022. Accordingly, Jin’s asylum claim fails.

Because Jin failed to meet his burden for asylum, it necessarily follows that he did not meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Jin failed to establish' it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to China. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2005).

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