Ram Chander Busigampala 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).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAM CHANDER BUSIGAMPALA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-77235
Agency No. A097-607-459
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.
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,
FILED
DEC 16 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

JT/Research 05-77235 2
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 no 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).

-- 2 of 3 --

JT/Research 05-77235 3
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.

-- 3 of 3 --