Singh v. Holder , 427 F. App'x 609 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             APR 20 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    VARINDER SINGH,                                   No. 08-70778
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A096-174-747
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted April 5, 2011 **
    Before:        B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    Varinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, 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”). Our
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
    factual findings, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 
    502 U.S. 478
    , 481 & n.1 (1992), and we
    review de novo due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 
    324 F.3d 1105
    ,
    1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
    Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Singh failed to
    establish that he was targeted by police on account of a protected ground. See
    Dinu v. Ashcroft, 
    372 F.3d 1041
    , 1044 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner has the burden of
    showing a purported criminal investigation has no bona fide objective).
    Accordingly, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See 
    id. at 1045.
    Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Singh
    failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to
    India. See Wakkary v. Holder, 
    558 F.3d 1049
    , 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
    We lack jurisdiction over Singh’s due process claim because he failed to
    exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 
    358 F.3d 674
    , 678 (9th Cir.
    2004) (curable procedural defects must be raised before the agency).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    2                                      08-70778
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-70778

Citation Numbers: 427 F. App'x 609

Judges: Bea, Clifton, Fletcher

Filed Date: 4/20/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023