FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KIRAN PRAJAPATI, a.k.a. KUNAL No. 08-71041
PATEL,
Agency No. A095-727-110
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011 **
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Kiran Prajapati, 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, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,
542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the attacks upon
Prajapati and his family were tied to money disputes and that Prajapati failed to
establish that a protected ground was at least one central reason for the attacks. See
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act
requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum
applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, Prajapati’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not address Prajapati’s CAT claim because he did not specifically and
distinctly challenge it in his opening brief. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d
1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (failure to raise a claim results in waiver).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-71041