Singh v. Gonzales, No. 03-1452 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1452 KULWINDER SINGH, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A73-001-872) Submitted: March 27, 2006 Decided: April 14, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Peter Drennan, Alexandria, Virginia; James T. Reynolds, PAUL SHEARMAN ALLEN & ASSOCIATES, Washington, D.C.; Steffanie Jones Lewis, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW FIRM, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey L. Oldham, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kulwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution. 478, 483-84 (1992). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Singh fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Singh cannot meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). We also uphold the IJ s finding Singh failed to establish eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). petition for review. facts and materials legal before Accordingly, we deny the We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.