Kaur v. Holder , 362 F. App'x 698 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PARKESH KAUR; JASWANT SINGH No. 06-71262
GILL,
Agency Nos. A046-480-486
Petitioners, A093-155-613
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Parkesh Kaur and Jaswant Singh Gill, husband and wife and natives and
citizens of India, petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
RA/Research
denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review for substantial evidence,
Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the
petition for review.
The evidence does not compel the conclusion that Kaur established
extraordinary circumstances to excuse her untimely asylum application. See
8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5). Accordingly, Kaur’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Kaur’s withholding of
removal claim because Kaur failed to establish that the government of India was
unwilling or unable to protect her from militants in India. See Castro-Perez v.
Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Kaur is
ineligible for CAT relief because she failed to establish that it would be more likely
than not that she would be tortured if returned to India. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439
F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
RA/Research 2 06-71262