Joga Singh 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOGA SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70133
Agency No. A079-570-221
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Joga Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-70133 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition.
The record supports the agency’s finding that police arrested Singh in 1995
because he assisted a known terrorist and was therefore suspected of being
involved in terrorist activities. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1112 (9th
Cir. 2006) (“where there is evidence of legitimate prosecutorial purpose, foreign
authorities enjoy much latitude in vigorously enforcing their laws”). The record
also supports the agency’s finding that several police arrested Singh in 1999 to
prevent him from aiding the state government in their prosecution of Punjabi
officers for mistreating him while he was in their custody. See Molina-Morales v.
INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (no persecution where official harmed
petitioner because of a personal dispute). Accordingly, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s determination that even if credible, Singh failed to establish
the Punjabi police harmed him on account of a protected ground. See INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84 (1992) (record did not establish persecution
was on account of a protected ground).
Because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum he necessarily failed
to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

08-70133 3
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Singh is not
eligible for CAT relief because he failed to show it is more likely than not he
would be tortured if removed to India. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d. at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --