Baljinder Kaur 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).
DL/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BALJINDER KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71357
Agency No. A095-415-552
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Baljinder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
FILED
DEC 29 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

DL/Research 07-71357 2
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the severity of the
harm Kaur experienced in India, including her brief detention and physical
mistreatment, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d
336, 339 (9th Cir. 1995). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding
that Kaur does not face a well-founded fear of future persecution, because her fear
of future harm is too speculative. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th
Cir. 2003).
Since Kaur did not establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to
satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Kaur failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not that she would face torture if
returned to India. See Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1122-23 (9th Cir. 2004)
(denial of CAT relief supported based upon the possibility of internal relocation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --