From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Singh v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 21, 2007
255 F. App'x 240 (9th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 05-77310.

Submitted November 13, 2007.

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

Filed November 21, 2007.

Robert B. Jobe, Esq., Law Offices of Robert B. Jobe, 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. A77-815-719.

Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

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


Lakhwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision that affirmed the ruling of an Immigration Judge ("IJ") 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.

Where, as here, the BIA reviews de novo the IJ's decision, our review is limited to the decision of the BIA. Garcia-Quintero v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir. 2006). We review for substantial evidence, Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition.

The BIA denied Singh's petition for asylum and withholding of removal, finding that, even assuming Singh had proven past persecution on account of a protected ground, the Government had successfully rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution by demonstrating changed country conditions. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence supports the denial of Singh's CAT claim because he did not establish that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if he returned to India. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003).

We deny all pending motions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Singh v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 21, 2007
255 F. App'x 240 (9th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

Singh v. Mukasey

Case Details

Full title:Lakhwinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 21, 2007

Citations

255 F. App'x 240 (9th Cir. 2007)