Yudhvinderpal Sandhu v. Eric H. Holder Jr. ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUDHVINDERPAL SINGH SANDHU; No. 08-71896
GURPREET KAUR SANDHU,
Agency Nos. A079-610-047
Petitioners, A079-610-048
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Yudhvinderpal Singh Sandhu and Gurpreet Kaur Sandhu, natives and
citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for
asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
*
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).
We review for substantial evidence, Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d
995, 998 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency found that Mr. Sandhu experienced past persecution on the basis
of a single incident in which he and his father were arrested and beaten by Indian
police in 1989. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the
government rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution
by establishing changed circumstances in India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1); see
also Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 999-1001. The agency rationally construed
evidence in the record and provided a sufficiently individualized analysis of
Sandhu’s situation. See id. at 1000-01. Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim
fails.
Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See id. at
1001 n.5.
Finally, petitioners’ contention that the IJ ignored country conditions
evidence is belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-71896