Parkesh Kaur; Jaswant Singh Gill v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

06-71262Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit19.01.2010

Gesamter Gesetzestext

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).
RA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PARKESH KAUR; JASWANT SINGH
GILL,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-71262
Agency Nos. A046-480-486
A093-155-613
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Parkesh Kaur and Jaswant Singh Gill, husband and wife and natives and
citizens of India, petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
FILED
JAN 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

RA/Research 06-71262 2
denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review for substantial evidence,
Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the
petition for review.
The evidence does not compel the conclusion that Kaur established
extraordinary circumstances to excuse her untimely asylum application. See
8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5). Accordingly, Kaur’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Kaur’s withholding of
removal claim because Kaur failed to establish that the government of India was
unwilling or unable to protect her from militants in India. See Castro-Perez v.
Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Kaur is
ineligible for CAT relief because she failed to establish that it would be more likely
than not that she would be tortured if returned to India. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439
F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.