Mukesh Kumar Rattan; Uma Urmila Rattan; v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
KV/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MUKESH KUMAR RATTAN; UMA
URMILA RATTAN; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 07-70635
07-72118
Agency Nos. A070-147-321
A070-147-322
A070-147-323
A070-147-324
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated cases, Mukesh Kumar Rattan, his wife Uma Urmila
Rattan, and their children, all natives and citizens of Fiji, petition for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

KV/Research 07-70635/07-72118 2
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)
(No. 07-70635), and the BIA’s order denying their motion to reopen (No. 07-
72118). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence factual findings, Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2009),
and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen, Lara-Torres
v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004). In petition No. 07-70635, we deny
in part and grant in part the petition for review and remand. In petition No. 07-
72118, we dismiss the petition for review as moot.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because Rattan
failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to
Fiji. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Rattan failed to establish
that his wife was robbed on account of a protected ground. See Gormley v.
Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence also supports
the IJ’s finding that Rattan’s inability to attend religious services due to a
government imposed curfew was not persecution on account of a protected ground.
See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 961-63 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

-- 2 of 3 --

KV/Research 07-70635/07-72118 3
However, regarding the mistreatment Rattan suffered when answering a fire
call, the beating of Rattan’s cousin, the incidents of stone-throwing, and the weekly
extortion and threats of rape and arson against Rattan’s family, the IJ’s findings do
not address these elements of past persecution. See Sinha, 564 F.3d at 1020-25. In
addition, the IJ’s past persecution findings based on a lack of evidence are not
supported by the record. Accordingly, we grant the petition with respect to
Rattan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, and we remand for the IJ to
determine whether, individually or cumulatively, Rattan has established the
incidents he suffered rose to the level of persecution, were on account of a
protected ground, and were committed by forces the government is either unable or
unwilling to control, and whether he has established a well-founded fear of future
persecution. See id. at 1026.
In light of our disposition in No. 07-70635, Rattan’s challenge to the BIA’s
order denying his motion to reopen is moot.
The parties shall each bear their own costs on appeal.
No. 07-70635: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED
in part; REMANDED.
No. 07-72118: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --