Gurpreet 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GURPREET SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-75070
Agency No. A072-404-190
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 23, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Gurpreet 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
FILED
AUG 31 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-75070 2
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Lim v. INS, 224
F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Singh did not
establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on the
police’s investigatory arrests and mistreatment, because he failed to show a nexus
between the harm he and his family suffered and one of the statutorily protected
grounds. 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).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Singh’s newly raised argument that he is
entitled to asylum as a matter of discretion. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no subject-matter jurisdiction over legal claims not presented
in administrative proceedings below). Accordingly, Singh’s asylum claim fails.
Because Singh did not establish eligibility for asylum, it follows that he did
not 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 conclusion that Singh is not
eligible for CAT relief because he failed to show it is more likely than not

-- 2 of 3 --

07-75070 3
he would be tortured if removed to India. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049,
1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
Singh’s pending motion for a stay of removal is denied as moot. The
temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --