FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUKHWINDER SINGH CHANDI, No. 07-71154
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-118-052
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Sukhwinder Singh Chandi, 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 (“IJ”) 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).
KAD/Research 1
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, Rostomian v. INS, 210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the
petition for review.
Chandi testified the police detained him in 2000, as part of an investigation
of a recent bomb explosion, and detained him again in 2001, as part of an
investigation of a passenger in Chandi’s taxi. Because his detentions related to
legitimate investigations, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Chandi
failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear based on Chandi’s actual
or imputed political opinion. See Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1043-44 (9th
Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Chandi’s asylum claim fails.
Because Chandi failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that
he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See id.
at 1045.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Chandi did not
establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to India, and
accordingly his CAT claim fails. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th
Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
KAD/Research 2 07-71154