Sidhartha Madhu Bhise v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SIDHARTHA MADHU BHISE,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71122
Agency No. A088-492-940
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 11, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: NOONAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Sidhartha Madhu Bhise seeks asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) based on abuses he
allegedly endured as a result of his opposition to Mauvin Godinho, an elected
official in the Indian state of Goa. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
FILED
APR 18 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 5 --

denied Bhise’s application. Bhise petitions for review of this decision. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1252.
To support his claims, Bhise testified to multiple instances of abuse.
Because the BIA did not reach the question of credibility, for the purposes of this
appeal, we credit Bhise’s testimony as true. See Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056,
1065 (9th Cir. 2013). In 2000, Bhise was arrested at a rally where he performed in
a political street play criticizing Godinho. The police detained Bhise overnight,
beat him, and forced him to sign a statement admitting that he had defamed
Godinho and promising to no longer participate in political street plays. In 2002,
after a victory rally for Godinho’s opponent in an election, Godinho’s men
attacked Bhise: they hit him and smashed in his car windows before he was able to
escape. In 2007, Bhise was putting up posters supporting the re-election of
Godinho’s incumbent political opponent when ten men with hockey sticks attacked
him and were able to hit him in the arm and back before he escaped.
After Godinho won the 2007 election, Godinho supporters threw rocks and
firecrackers at Bhise’s family’s home. Fearing further harm, Bhise left to stay with
a relative in Mumbai until he was able to leave India as an employee on a Carnival
Cruise Line ship.
2

-- 2 of 5 --

In 2008, Bhise returned home. A few days after his return, Godinho
supporters came to Bhise’s house to search for him and told Bhise’s father that
they had old scores to settle with Bhise. Once again, Bhise escaped to stay with his
relative in Mumbai until he gained employment on a cruise ship, allowing him to
leave the country.
In 2009, Bhise returned to India, but did not return to his hometown. He
tried to stay with his relative in Mumbai, but the police had been searching for him
there. Bhise stayed elsewhere in Mumbai for two months before he obtained
employment on a cruise ship and left the country a final time. He entered the
United States on or about June 5, 2009 and has not returned to India since. He
testified that the police and Godinho supporters have continued to search for him at
his family’s home and his father’s affidavit supports that statement.
1. The harm Bhise has suffered does not rise to the level of past persecution.
Although the initial detention by the police is similar to one of the detentions in
Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2004), the surrounding
circumstances are completely different. After the initial detention, two years
elapsed before the next physical altercation and five more years elapsed before the
second. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (remaining
six additional months within origin country without incident weighs against a
3

-- 3 of 5 --

finding of persecution). Neither of those subsequent altercations rose to the level
of abuse that occurred in Guo. See Guo, 361 F.3d at 1203.
Bhise also testified that his life was threatened either after his final return in
2009 or when Godinho’s supporters searched for him in 2008. Regardless, the
evidence of this threat was admittedly hearsay told to him by his father and,
accordingly, is given less weight. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1021 (9th
Cir. 2006) (accepting testimony as true “does not prevent us from considering the
relative probative value of hearsay and non-hearsay testimony”). Overall, the
record does not compel the conclusion that Bhise suffered past persecution. See
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992).
2. Bhise has failed to prove that he has a well-founded fear of future
persecution because he has not shown that his fear is objectively valid. There is no
indication that Bhise will, upon his return, suffer abuse of greater severity than
what he suffered in the past, indicating that future abuses will probably not rise to
the level of persecution. Also, because any death threat made against Bhise was
developed through hearsay evidence, Bhise’s testimony about such threats does not
compel the conclusion that he will be persecuted in the future. Although Godinho
supporters and the police continue to search for Bhise, those searches do not
necessarily indicate that Bhise would suffer persecution if he were found. See Gu,
4

-- 4 of 5 --

454 F.3d at 1021–22. Additionally, Bhise’s multiple returns to India, where he
stayed for two months each time without incident, further undermine his
contention that he will suffer future persecution. Cf. Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d
520, 524–25 (9th Cir. 2006). Overall, the evidence does not compel overturning
the BIA’s conclusion that Bhise does not have a well-founded fear of future
persecution. See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481 & n.1.
3. Because Bhise does not satisfy the objective standard for a well-founded
fear of future persecution, Bhise also does not satisfy the more stringent standard
for withholding of removal. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.
2006).
4. The physical abuses at issue here did not involve the intentional infliction
of “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, . . . on a person” and
therefore do not rise to the level of torture. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); Nuru v.
Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005).
The petition is DENIED.
5

-- 5 of 5 --