Buyanjargal Sandagdorj; 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 concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BUYANJARGAL SANDAGDORJ; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71307
Agency Nos. A098-126-408
A098-126-410
A098-126-411
A098-126-412
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Buyanjargal Sandagdorj, and his family, natives and citizens of Mongolia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
FILED
JUN 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-71307 2
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992), and we deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioners failed to
establish the harms they experienced in Mongolia related to lead petitioner’s
occupation as a debt collector for a private company, and the harms they fear upon
return, are based on a protected ground. See id. at 482-84; see also Dinu v.
Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1043-45 (9th Cir. 2004) (concluding that heavy-handed
tactics used by police during an investigation for legitimate purposes was not
persecution on account of petitioner’s political opinion). Accordingly, petitioners’
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, because
petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they would be tortured if
returned to Mongolia. See El Himri v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --