Jatinder 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JATINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72150
Agency No. A097-102-982
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges
Jatinder 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
SEP 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-72150 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Singh timely filed his
application within a reasonable period following the expiration of his lawful
immigration status. See Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181-82 (9th Cir.
2008). Accordingly, Singh’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Singh failed to
establish past persecution based on his mistreatment by Indian authorities because
he did not demonstrate the police were motivated, even in part, by his political
opinion or his religion. See Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1044-45 (9th
Cir.2004) (presumption that police harassment of alien is politically motivated
arises only where there appears to be no other logical reason for the persecution at
issue); Kozulin v. INS, 218 F.3d 1112, 1116-17 (9th Cir. 2000). We reject Singh’s
contentions that the IJ improperly speculated about the motivations of police in
arresting him or that his treatment was disproportionately severe. See Dinu, 372
F.3d at 1044-45 (“heavy-handed” police tactics did not give rise to inference of
political persecution). Because Singh did not establish past persecution, he is not
entitled to a presumption of a future fear. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d

-- 2 of 3 --

10-72150 3
1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that
Singh did not otherwise establish it was more likely than not he would suffer future
harm. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly,
Singh’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Singh failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to
India. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
Lastly, Singh fails to raise any argument in the opening brief with respect to
his motion to remand. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th
Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --