Satwant Singh Bagri 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SATWANT SINGH BAGRI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-75053
Agency No. A077-421-554
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Satwant Singh Bagri, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
FEB 28 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-75053 2
an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bagri’s motion to reopen
because it considered the record and acted within its broad discretion in
determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility
for asylum, withholding of removal, or Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)
relief, given the immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination, which we
upheld in Bagri v. Gonzales, 232 Fed. Appx. 629 (9th Cir. Apr. 18, 2007). See
Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97.
The BIA did not apply a higher standard to Bagri’s motion because
providing credible evidence is a necessary component of establishing prima facie
eligibility for relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a).
Finally, Bagri’s contention that the BIA abused its discretion by not
analyzing his claim for CAT relief separately fails because Bagri’s CAT claim is
based on the testimony the agency found not credible, and he points to no other
evidence showing it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to India.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --