Sunita Sharma 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SUNITA SHARMA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73319
Agency No. A097-545-858
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Sunita Sharma, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
JUN 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-73319 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings, Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir. 1997), and we review de
novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Sharma failed to
establish that she was or would be persecuted on account of an actual or imputed
political opinion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84 (1992).
Further, even if Sharma’s family qualifies as a “social group,” the evidence does
not compel a conclusion that the militants’ threats and attempts to recruit her
husband were motivated on account of a familial relationship. See Molina-Estrada
v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2002). Because Sharma did not establish that
her claimed past persecution or fear of future persecution has a nexus to a protected
ground, her asylum and withholding claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Sharma failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not she will be tortured if she
returns to India. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Sharma’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --