From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lubana v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 28, 2008
290 F. App'x 981 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-71060.

Submitted August 25, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed August 28, 2008.

Patrick Ontiveros Cantor, Esquire, Butter Cantor, LLP, Tukwila, WA, for Petitioner.

Kathryn DeAngelis, Julie M. Iversen, Esquire, ANH-Thu P. Mai, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A98-344-916.

Before: T.G. NELSON, HAWKINS, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Shamsher Singh Lubana, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the BIA's findings regarding changed country conditions for substantial evidence, Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 805 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA's adoption of the IJ's determination that, even assuming past persecution, changed circumstances in India rebut Lubana's presumed, well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft 336 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2003) (where agency rationally construes country report and makes an individualized analysis of petitioner's situation, agency determination will be upheld).

In reaching this conclusion, the IJ analyzed a series of newspaper articles Lubana submitted in support of his application. Based on these documents, as well as Lubana's testimony, the IJ determined that: (1) Lubana claimed he was persecuted because he supported the opponent of Bibi Jagir Kaur in a 2002 election; and (2) Kaur has since been removed from her position as president of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbahdhak Committee on unrelated corruption charges. The IJ also observed that India's Congress party (a member of whom Lubana supported in the 2002 election) prevailed in the 2004 election. This analysis is sufficiently individualized and the ultimate changed-circumstances finding is supported by substantial evidence. See id.

Because Lubana failed to demonstrate he was eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not qualify for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

In addition, substantial evidence supports the IJ's determination that Lubana is not entitled to CAT protection because he failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to India. See Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1122-23 (9th Cir. 2004); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Lubana v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 28, 2008
290 F. App'x 981 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Lubana v. Mukasey

Case Details

Full title:Shamsher Singh LUBANA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 28, 2008

Citations

290 F. App'x 981 (9th Cir. 2008)