FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAKTI BHATIA; RANDEEP SANDER, No. 08-71843
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A098-151-087
A098-151-088
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
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.
Shakti Bhatia and Randeep Sander, natives and citizens of India, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we
deny the petition for review.
Petitioners testified to receiving threats from some of Sander’s family
members because of their interfaith marriage, and to an incident in which they
were stopped by Sikhs who demanded Bhatia become Sikh, join their group and
move to Punjab, or that he and Sander separate. Even if petitioners were credible,
and their asylum application was timely, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s finding that petitioners failed to demonstrate they were or will be harmed
by forces the government of India is unwilling or unable to control. See
Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly,
petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See id.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of petitioners’ CAT claim
because they failed to establish a likelihood of torture by or with the acquiescence
of government officials if returned to India. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d
940, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007).
2 08-71843
Finally, petitioners contend the BIA violated due process when it found
India’s privacy laws and enforcement of those laws similar to that of the United
States. We reject petitioners’ contention because the BIA made no such finding.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-71843