Ramandeep Bindra v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 12-1361 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1361 RAMANDEEP SINGH BINDRA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 18, 2012 Decided: August 3, 2012 Before KING, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ramandeep Singh Bindra, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ramandeep Singh Bindra, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) judge s denial dismissing of his his appeal requests for from the asylum, immigration withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for review. A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial INS v. Elias- evidence on the record considered as a whole. Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings of fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. reviewed [Board] s 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). de novo, affording interpretation of appropriate the Legal issues are deference [Immigration and to the Nationality Act] and any attendant regulations. Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This court will reverse the . Board only if the evidence . . presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, [t]he agency decision 2 that an alien is not eligible for asylum is conclusive unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion. Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that substantial finding. We evidence further supports conclude that the adverse Bindra failed credibility to present sufficient independent evidence of past persecution on account of a protected ground, notwithstanding the adverse credibility determination, as discussed in Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). We therefore uphold the denial of Bindra s requests for asylum and withholding of removal. See id. at 367 ( Because of the burden of proof for withholding removal is higher than for asylum even though the facts that must be proved are the same an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3). ). Additionally, Bindra challenges the denial of request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. his To qualify for such protection, a petitioner bears the burden of proof of showing it is more likely than not that he or she would be removal. tortured if removed to the 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2012). proposed country of Based on our review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports 3 the denial of his request for relief. See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review). Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because the for facts review. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 4
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.
