Balbir Singh v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2017 )

  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                         UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         DEC 21 2017
                                                                            MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                             U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    BALBIR SINGH,                                    No.    16-73683
                    Petitioner,                      Agency No. A070-970-501
                          On Petition for Review of an Order of an
                              Immigration Judge’s Decision
                               Submitted December 18, 2017**
    Before:      WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
          Balbir Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of an
    immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did
    not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and thus is not entitled to relief
    from his administrative removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
                 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
                 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings. Andrade-
    Garcia v. Lynch, 
    828 F.3d 829
    , 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for
          Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Singh failed to
    demonstrate a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a protected
    ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 
    640 F.3d 1095
    , 1097-98 (9th Cir. 2011)
    (mistreatment motivated purely by personal retribution does not bear a nexus to a
    protected ground); Gonzalez v. Holder, 
    641 F.3d 333
    , 338 (9th Cir. 2011)
    (testimony of petitioner’s belief that relocation would not be safe or reasonable
    was, by itself, insufficient to meet petitioner’s burden of proof).
          Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Singh failed to
    demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or
    acquiescence of the government. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836-37.
          We reject, as unsupported by the record, Singh’s contentions that the IJ
    violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 
    204 F.3d 1241
    , 1246 (9th Cir.
    2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
                                               2                                   16-73683