SURINDER PADWAL V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-71730 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED SEP 18 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SURINDER SINGH PADWAL, Petitioner, No. 10-71730 Agency No. A097-592-359 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 10, 2012 ** Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Surinder Singh Padwal, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We have * 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir. 1997), and we deny the petition for review. Padwal testified to problems he had after refusing the bribery attempts of influential members of a Hindu political party. The agency found that sweeping changes have occurred in India, including the elections of 2004, and that Padwal failed to establish a reasonable fear of future harm which has a nexus to a protected ground. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (to reverse the agency s finding we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it ); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A). Because this finding is dispositive, we do not reach Padwal s remaining contentions. Accordingly, Padwal s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1288 (9th Cir. 2008). Finally, Padwal fails to raise any substantive challenge to the denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed waived). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 10-71730
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.
