FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KULWANT SINGH, a.k.a. Kulwant Singh No. 11-71545
Kahlon,
Agency No. A071-484-784
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
**
Submitted June 26, 2012
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Kulwant Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se 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
*
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).
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Molina-
Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny the petition for
review.
Singh claims he will be persecuted in India by his politically-connected
brother. Even if Singh’s asylum application was timely, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s finding that Singh failed to establish a nexus to a protected
ground. See id. at 1051-52 (evidence indicated harm was based on a personal
matter not a protected ground); 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, Singh’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Molina-Morales, 237 F.3d at
1052.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Singh failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or
with the acquiescence of the government if returned to India. See Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-71545