FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PREETINDER SINGH WALIA, No. 08-71280
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-101-867
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Preetinder Singh Walia, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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
*
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).
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zhao v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d
1027, 1029 (9th Cir. 2008). We grant in part and deny in part the petition for
review, and remand.
We reject Walia’s contention that the agency ignored evidence, because he
has failed to overcome the presumption that the agency considered all the
evidence. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 95-96 (9th Cir. 2000). The
agency acknowledged Walia was a victim of past persecution. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s conclusions that, given Walia’s particular
circumstances, fundamental changes in India rebutted the presumption that he had
a well-founded fear of future persecution if returned to India. See Gonzalez-
Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 996 (9th Cir.2003) (concluding that
“[b]ecause the country report in this case indicates that only high-level political
figures are now subject to persecution on account of political opinion in
Guatemala, . . . substantial evidence supports the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(BIA) decision to deny asylum to petitioners, who were never party leaders nor
high-level politicians.” (footnote omitted)).
Because Walia failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution, it
necessarily follows that he failed to establish a clear probability of future
2 08-71280
persecution. See Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 1001 n.5. Accordingly, we
deny the petition as to his withholding of removal claim.
Walia failed to raise any argument challenging the agency’s denial of his
CAT claim in his briefing to this court. See Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172,
1183 (9th Cir. 2008) (CAT claim was waived where petitioner failed to advance
argument in support of it). Accordingly, Walia’s CAT claim fails.
However, with respect to Walia’s humanitarian asylum claim, the BIA erred
by failing to address it. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir.
2005); see also Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining
that although petitioner did not brief CAT claim at length in brief to BIA, it was
adequately exhausted where the issue was mentioned in the brief). Accordingly,
we grant the petition with respect to Walia’s humanitarian asylum claim, and
remand to the BIA to address it in the first instance. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S.
12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part;
REMANDED.
3 08-71280