eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2010-02

Sudan v. Holder ( 2010 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                               FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               FEB 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JATINDER SUDAN,                                   No. 07-70003
Petitioner,                         Agency No. A095-559-639
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before:        FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jatinder Sudan, 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 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).
KAD/Research
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,
Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,
    542 F.3d 738
    , 742 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Sudan’s
experiences, including one beating, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu
v. Gonzales,
    454 F.3d 1014
    , 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence also
supports the BIA’s conclusion that Sudan failed to establish a well-founded fear of
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS,
    333 F.3d 1012
    , 1018 (9th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, Sudan’s asylum claim fails.
Because Sudan failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah
v. Ashcroft,
    348 F.3d 1153
    , 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Sudan
did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent
or acquiescence of the Indian government. See Arteaga v. Mukasey,
    511 F.3d 940
    ,
948-49 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
KAD/Research                                2                                     07-70003