MEMORANDUM **
Ani Sahakyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judges decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agencys factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agencys determination that the harm Sahakyan experienced in Armenia, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (detention, beating, and interrogation did not compel a finding of past persecution); see also INS. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (“To reverse the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it[.]”); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Persecution ․ is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Substantial evidence also supports the agencys determination that Sahakyan failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gu, 454 F.3d at 1022 (petitioner failed “to present compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”); see also Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”).
Thus, Sahakyans asylum claim fails.
Because Sahakyan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case, she failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.