Dass, et al v. Holder, No. 07-71109 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOV 01 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BISHAN DASS, No. 07-71109 Petitioner, Agency No. A078-959-416 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Bishan Dass, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We have jurisdiction * 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). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition. Substantial evidence supports the BIA s finding that even if Dass testimony were credible and he established past persecution, the government established by a preponderance of evidence that Dass could reasonably relocate within India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(ii); Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2003) (presumption of a well-founded fear can be rebutted by showing that under all the circumstances the applicant could reasonably be expected to relocate). Accordingly, Dass claims for asylum and withholding of removal fail. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA s denial of CAT relief because Dass failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to India. See Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1122-23 (9th Cir. 2004) (denying CAT relief based on the possibility of internal relocation). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 07-71109

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.