FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAVINDER KAUR, No. 08-71257
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-525-601
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges
Ravinder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th
Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Kaur asserts that she suffered a one day detention, numerous insults, and
physical harassment including being pushed, touched inappropriately, and slapped.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that these incidents, even
considered cumulatively, do not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v.
Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (brief detention, beating and
interrogation by police did not compel a finding of past persecution by Chinese
police); Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1996) (being hit, kicked, and
questioned during detention did not compel a finding of persecution).
In addition, given the lack of continuing police interest in Kaur, and the lack
of problems for her aunt, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that
Kaur failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Hakeem v. INS,
273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
(“An applicant's claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut,
when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without
incident...”).
08-71257
Because Kaur failed to establish her eligibility for asylum, she necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Kaur did not
establish a clear probability that she would be tortured if returned to India. See
Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, her CAT
claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
08-71257