Satinder 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SATINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74974
Agency No. A072-135-065
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 6, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Satinder 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. We have jurisdiction under
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings,
FILED
DEC 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74974 2
Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition
for review.
Singh does not raise any argument that he suffered past persecution, see
Martinez-Serrano v. Holder, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-1260 (9th Cir. 1996), but
contends he has a well-founded fear of persecution based on having witnessed a
riot from his roof-top in 1984, and based on the harm his father suffered after
Singh left India. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Singh has
not established a well-founded fear of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d
1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096
(9th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he IJ and the BIA are entitled to rely on all relevant evidence
in the record, including a State Department report, in considering whether the
petitioner has demonstrated that there is good reason to fear future persecution”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --