Kulwant Singh, a.k.a. Kulwant Singh Kahlon 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KULWANT SINGH, a.k.a. Kulwant Singh
Kahlon,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71545
Agency No. A071-484-784
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Kulwant Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se 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
FILED
JUN 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-71545 2
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Molina-
Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny the petition for
review.
Singh claims he will be persecuted in India by his politically-connected
brother. Even if Singh’s asylum application was timely, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s finding that Singh failed to establish a nexus to a protected
ground. See id. at 1051-52 (evidence indicated harm was based on a personal
matter not a protected ground); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734,
740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he REAL ID Act requires that a protected ground represent
‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, Singh’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Molina-Morales, 237 F.3d at
1052.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Singh failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or
with the acquiescence of the government if returned to India. See Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --