Yang

facts here, the IJ’s finding of no past persecution, as adopted and affirmed by the

BIA, is supported by substantial evidence. See id. at 1020 (contrasting the “repeated,

lengthy and severe harassment” that compelled the reversal of the BIA’s finding of

no past persecution in Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2004), with the

“single, isolated encounter” that did not compel the reversal of the BIA’s finding of

no past persecution in Prasad v. I.N.S., 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995)). In addition,

substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Yang reported only unfulfilled

threats. See Lim v. I.N.S., 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that unfulfilled

threats, without more, generally do not constitute past persecution).

b. The BIA’s finding of no future persecution is also supported by substantial

evidence. The BIA, adopting the IJ’s finding, concluded that Yang “appears to fear

prosecution rather than persecution.” See Lin v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th

Cir. 2010) (“Ordinary prosecution for criminal activity is not persecution . . . .”). The

23-4295 BIA also noted that “[Yang] does not explain how being…