FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 27 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUKHCHAIN SINGH, No. 11-73180
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-924-867
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013 **
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Sukhchain Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
*
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).
the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.
2009), and review de novo the agency’s legal determinations, including claims of
due process violations, Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if
credible, Singh failed to establish he suffered past persecution in India. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003) (discrimination and
harassment due to religious beliefs did not compel finding of past persecution).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Singh failed to
establish a well-founded fear of persecution in India on account of his Sikh
religion, where his Sikh parents, brother, and sister have continued to live in India
without incident. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An
applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when
similarly-situated family members continue to live in [applicant’s home] country
without incident[.]”) (internal citation omitted). In addition, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s finding that Singh failed to establish a nexus between his
fear of the smuggler and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,
1015 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner must “demonstrate that one of the five protected
2 11-73180
grounds will be at least one central reason for his persecution.”). Consequently,
Singh’s asylum claim fails.
Because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of
removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190
(9th Cir. 2006).
We reject Singh’s contention that the agency violated due process in
determining that he failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of
future persecution. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). Further, the
record does not support Singh’s contentions that the agency failed to consider
relevant country condition evidence or failed to determine how circumstances in
India affect his situation.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-73180