FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 6 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SATPAL SINGH, No. 08-74119
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-558-065
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
**
Submitted August 11, 2011
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Satpal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the BIA “conducted its own
review of the evidence and law rather than simply adopting the immigration
judge’s decision . . . our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the
extent the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953,
957 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Reviewing
the BIA’s decision to deny asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for
substantial evidence, Kumar v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2006), we
deny Singh’s petition in its entirety.
The BIA held that Singh did not experience past persecution in India
because he had failed to establish a nexus between the harm he allegedly suffered
and a protected ground under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). This finding is supported by substantial evidence,
because Singh did not convincingly show that the police detained him on account
of religion or imputed political opinions, see Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1489
(9th Cir. 1997), or that the Naxalites’ treatment of him rose to the level of
persecution, as defined in the INA, see Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir.
1995). Additionally, the BIA’s determination that Singh did not establish a well-
founded fear of future persecution is supported by substantial evidence, because he
failed to “adduc[e] credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record of facts that
2
would support a reasonable fear of persecution.” Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014,
1019 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, “it follows that [he]
cannot meet the more stringent standard of withholding of” removal. Prasad v.
INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995). Similarly, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s denial of relief under CAT, because Singh has not presented evidence
that shows he will more likely than not be tortured if removed to India. Nahrvani
v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3