NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
APR 13 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ANIL KUMAR MEHTA; et al., No. 13-71387
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A089-688-936
A089-688-937
v. A089-688-938
A089-688-939
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent. MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, NOONAN, and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.
Anil Mehta (Mr. Mehta), his wife, and their two sons, (collectively,
Petitioners), all adult natives and citizens of India, seek review of a final order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing Petitioners’ appeal
from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying Mr. Mehta’s application for
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT).
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for
review.
Because the BIA issued its own opinion, but also incorporated the IJ’s
reasoning, we review both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions together. Malkandi v.
Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 917 (9th Cir. 2008) (as amended). The BIA’s “findings of
fact ‘are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
conclude to the contrary.’” Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 858 (9th Cir.
2009) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)) (abrogated on other grounds).
With respect to Mr. Mehta’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the
BIA reasonably determined that Mr. Mehta failed to demonstrate that an imputed
political opinion was a “central reason” for his persecution in India. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). Substantial evidence in the record supports the BIA’s
determination that Mr. Mehta suffered abuse due to a personal financial dispute,
not because of any political opinion (imputed or not). See Molina-Morales v.
I.N.S., 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001). Nor did the Board commit reversible
error by declining to discuss explicitly the extent of corruption in India. Although
such evidence might be relevant to the factual question of whether Mehta’s
2
political beliefs were “one central reason” he was persecuted, the evidence upon
which Mehta relies does not compel a finding contrary to that reached by the
Board. The Board did not err by declining to say more on the subject.
Petitioners waived any argument related to Mr. Mehta’s CAT petition by
failing to raise any challenge to the agency’s denial of that claim in their opening
brief. See Maharaj v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 961, 967 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc).
Nevertheless, the record supports the BIA’s determination that Mr. Mehta failed to
establish that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to
India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).
PETITION DENIED.
3