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NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 21 2011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
JAGJEET SINGH GILL, No. 08-72277
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-344-291
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.
Jagjeet Singh Gill, 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, Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d
1482, 1487 (9th Cir. 1997), and we deny the petition for review.
Gill testified police searched for him because of their belief that he could
become politically active like his father, their belief that Gill had connections to
militants, their desire to take revenge for his father’s past political activities, and an
investigation regarding a convict who escaped from jail. Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s finding that Gill failed to establish that a protected ground
was one central reason for the police’s interest in him. See id. at 1490-91; see also
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he REAL ID Act
requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum
applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, Gill’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Gill failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned
to India. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-72277