Chander Kaur Narang; Shantanu Narang v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHANDER KAUR NARANG;
SHANTANU NARANG,
Petitioners,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71700
Agency Nos. A075-309-506
A075-309-505
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and DAVIS,*** Circuit Judges.
FILED
JAN 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
*** The Honorable Andre M. Davis, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting by designation.
1

-- 1 of 3 --

Chander Narang petitions on behalf of herself and Shantanu Narang, her son,
for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the
denial of their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT).
1. The BIA’s decision was supported by substantial individualized
evidence. See Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 832-33 (9th Cir. 2014). It follows
that the determination that the government rebutted Petitioners’ well-founded fear
of future persecution in India was also supported by substantial evidence. See id.
at 832.
2. The Immigration Judge (IJ) committed no due process violation when he
accepted the government’s untimely brief. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,
1012 (9th Cir. 2010), as amended (noting that an untimely brief may be
considered).
3. The due process claim predicated on the IJ’s failure to make separate
findings on Petitioners’ requests for asylum, withholding of removal and CAT
relief is unavailing. We review the BIA decision, and the BIA reviewed each
2

-- 2 of 3 --

request for relief separately. See Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056, 1062 (9th Cir.
2013).
4. Finally, there is no viable due process claim predicated on the IJ’s bias.
A biased IJ is one who does not allow a petitioner to fully testify or present
evidence supporting her claims. See Reyes-Melendez v. INS, 342 F.3d 1001, 1006
(9th Cir. 2003). Nothing in the record reflects any such bias.
5. The BIA’s decision to deny Petitioners’ CAT claim is supported by
substantial evidence. Petitioners failed to establish that it was more likely than not
that they would be subjected to torture if returned to India. See Sowe v. Mukasey,
538 F.3d 1281, 1288 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --