FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 06 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMSU MIAH CHOWDHURY, No. 10-72795
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-629-874
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Samsu Miah Chowdhury, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, 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,
*
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).
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
A local landlord threatened Chowdhury, beat his son, and farmed a portion
of Chowdhury’s lands without paying rent. Substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s determination that the landlord was motivated by his desire to obtain
Chowdhury’s land, rather than by Chowdhury’s political opinion or membership in
a social group consisting of his family. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1490-
91 (9th Cir. 1997) (petitioner failed to show by direct or circumstantial evidence
that persecution occurred “on account of” political beliefs). In the absence of a
nexus to a protected ground, Chowdhury’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 BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Chowdhury failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned
to Bangladesh. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-72795