Gurjeet Kaur v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURJEET KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70323
Agency No. A095-574-966
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 9, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Gurjeet Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a decision
by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
FILED
FEB 11 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Kaur failed to
establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Kaur was never personally persecuted in India. Her
asylum application was based on her late husband’s political opinions, for which
he was arrested and detained by Indian police twice in the early 1980s. Since her
husband’s death in 1993, Kaur has remarried twice, and she has returned to India
on numerous occasions over the years without incident. Kaur’s similarly-situated
family members also continued to reside in India and never experienced
persecution there. Given the paucity of evidence suggesting that the Indian
government ever imputed to Kaur, or would today impute to Kaur, her deceased
husband’s political views, the BIA did not err in concluding that Kaur’s
relationship to her ex-husband was insufficient to establish a well-founded fear of
persecution if Kaur were returned to India. See Belayneh v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 488,
491 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that substantial evidence supported agency’s decision
to deny an asylum claim based solely on the applicant’s estranged spouse’s
political beliefs).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --