FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 30 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARCHARAN SINGH, No. 07-73605
Petitioner, Agency No. A047-659-172
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.
Harcharan Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decisions affirming the agency’s termination of Singh’s conditional
residency status and denying Singh’s application for asylum and withholding of
*
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).
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Damon v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Singh’s conditional
residency status was properly terminated and Singh was subject to removal, see 8
U.S.C. § 1186a, where Singh’s citizen-spouse disclosed she divorced her husband
to marry Singh, her ex-husband’s brother, for immigration purposes, and the
marriage was not consummated. See Damon, 360 F.3d at 1089 (test for a bona fide
marriage is whether the couple intended to establish a life together at the time they
were married); see also Bark v. INS, 511 F.2d 1200, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 1975)
(conduct of parties after marriage is relevant to show intent at time of marriage).
In addition, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Singh’s
experiences in India, including one detention and mistreatment by Indian police,
did not constitute persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th
Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Singh
failed to establish he has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Nahrvani
v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (evidence did not compel finding
that petitioner’s fear of future persecution was objectively reasonable).
Accordingly, Singh’s asylum claim fails.
2 07-73605
Because Singh failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, he did not
satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-73605