Amit Kumar 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMIT KUMAR SHARMA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72666
Agency No. A098-845-044
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted December 5, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Amit Sharma petitions for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’
decision denying his claims for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158 and withholding of
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). We deny the petition. Because the parties
are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recite it here.
FILED
DEC 18 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The Board adequately addressed Sharma’s claims of persecution based on
membership in a particular social group as Sharma presented his arguments to the
Board. To the extent Sharma argues that his claim of membership in a particular
social group of his immediate family was distinct from his claim of membership in
a particular social group consisting of people who violate the social norm of
refusing to support their extended families, Sharma did not adequately “‘put the
BIA on notice’” that these claims were separate. See Arsdi v. Holder, 659 F.3d
925, 929 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713, 721 (9th Cir.
2004) (per curiam)).
Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that
Sharma failed to establish that he was persecuted on account of his membership in
any purported social group and instead was persecuted on non-protected grounds.
See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-42 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --