Opinion
No. 05-77235.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed December 16, 2009.
Jeffrey Martins, Esq., Law Offices of Jeffrey Martins, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John D. Williams, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A097-607-459.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Ram Chander Busigampala, 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 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001), and review de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th. Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's conclusion that Busigampala failed to establish he suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution from his step brothers, members of the Telugu Desam Party, or the Indian police on account of a protected ground. See Molina-Morales, 237 F.3d at 1051-52; Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.
Having failed to establish eligibility for asylum, Busigampala necessarily fails to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See id. at 1052. Busigampala's contention the BIA failed to consider his withholding of removal claim is belied by the record.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT protection because Busigampala did not demonstrate it is more likely than not that he would be subject to torture if returned to India. See El Himri v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir. 2004).
Busigampala's contention that his due process rights were violated by the BIA's consideration of evidence not contained in the record fails for lack of prejudice. See Colmenar, 210 F.3d at 971.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.