Hardeep 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).
KAD/Research 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARDEEP SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71661
Agency No. A097-596-806
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Hardeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
FILED
DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

KAD/Research 07-71661 2
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence, Rostomian v. INS, 210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir. 2000), and
we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Singh’s contention that he was persecuted
on account of his membership in the particular social group comprised of his
family because he failed to exhaust this contention before the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision that Singh failed to establish
past persecution or a well-founded fear based on a protected ground because the
record reflects both that the police interrogated Singh overnight as part of a bona
fide investigation of Singh’s son’s association with alleged terrorists, see Dinu v.
Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1043-44 (9th Cir. 2004), and that the alleged terrorists’
interest in Singh and his son was motivated by personal retribution, see Grava v.
INS, 205 F.3d 1177, 1181 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, Singh’s asylum claim
fails.
Because Singh failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that he
did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Dinu,
372 F.3d at 1045.

-- 2 of 3 --

KAD/Research 07-71661 3
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Singh did not establish
it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to India, and
accordingly his CAT claim fails. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th
Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --