Shishan Kumar v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHISHAN KUMAR, No. 08-73520
Petitioner, BIA No. A097-515-263
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2013 **
San Francisco, California
Before: NOONAN, FISHER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Shishan Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
BIA’s decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT. We deny the petition
for review.
*
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).
The parties are familiar with the facts of this case. Kumar testified as
follows: He left India because of police corruption in his town. The police claimed
Kumar was interfering in their work when he questioned the arrests of a neighbor’s
son and friends after a raid on their house, and they later summoned him to the
police station whenever there was an incident in the village. Police detained him
for a few hours on several occasions for allegedly providing shelter to militants.
On another occasion he was arrested and accused of helping two boys whom the
police called militants after the boys had wanted to distribute flyers in Kumar’s
store. On a third occasion the police detained him for four days, beat him and
questioned him about visitors he had met at his cousin’s house. Kumar claims to
have no political affiliation.
The BIA upheld the IJ’s denial of asylum as time-barred and the denial of
withholding relief on adverse credibility and nexus grounds. The IJ made an
adverse credibility finding due to inconsistences in Kumar’s testimony. The IJ held
that under the REAL ID Act, Kumar ought to have corroborated his claim with
statements from his wife, his neighbors, and from his doctor, which he did not do.
Alternatively, the IJ found that even if Kumar were credible, she would have
denied his withholding claim because there was no political character to the arrests
and no nexus between Kumar’s arrests and a protected ground.
2
The BIA upheld the IJ’s decision and issued a separate opinion. The BIA
held that the IJ was not clearly erroneous in finding the respondent not credible,
that Kumar did not show that a primary reason for any harm was a protected
ground, and that his account did not meet the standard of proof that it was more
likely than not he would be tortured. In his petition for review, Kumar does not
challenge the BIA’s denial of his asylum or CAT petitions; he only appeals the
denial of his withholding of removal claim
This court has jurisdiction to review final orders of removal by the BIA
under 8 U.S.C. §1252. The BIA’s determination must be upheld if “supported by
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
whole.” INS v.Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992); see also Wang v.
Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 1015, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003) (“We review the BIA’s decision to
deny withholding of removal for substantial evidence.”).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Kumar failed to
show a nexus between the harm he suffered and a protected ground. The arrests
occurred in the course of police investigations and did not occur on account of
Kumar’s affiliation or imputed affiliation with a social group, political affiliation
or religion. Furthermore, Kumar testified that he does not belong to a political
party and that he left India because of corrupt police authorities in his town. The
3
fact that police suspected Kumar of helping militants on two occasions is not
sufficient evidence to show they believed he shared the militants’ political views.
We do not reach the issue of the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.
We affirm the BIA’s decision and deny Kumar’s claim for withholding of
removal. PETITION DENIED.
4