Surinder Singh Padwal 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SURINDER SINGH PADWAL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71730
Agency No. A097-592-359
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Surinder Singh Padwal, 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”). We have
FILED
SEP 18 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71730 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Sangha v.
INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir. 1997), and we deny the petition for review.
Padwal testified to problems he had after refusing the bribery attempts of
influential members of a Hindu political party. The agency found that sweeping
changes have occurred in India, including the elections of 2004, and that Padwal
failed to establish a reasonable fear of future harm which has a nexus to a protected
ground. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (to reverse the agency’s finding “we must
find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it”); see also
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A). Because this finding is dispositive, we do not
reach Padwal’s remaining contentions. Accordingly, Padwal’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1288
(9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, Padwal fails to raise any substantive challenge to the denial of his
CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --