Jatinder Sudan 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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JATINDER SUDAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70003
Agency No. A095-559-639
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jatinder Sudan, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
FILED
FEB 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KAD/Research 07-70003 2
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,
Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Sudan’s
experiences, including one beating, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu
v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence also
supports the BIA’s conclusion that Sudan failed to establish a well-founded fear of
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, Sudan’s asylum claim fails.
Because Sudan failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah
v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Sudan
did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent
or acquiescence of the Indian government. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940,
948-49 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --