Singh, et al v. Holder, No. 07-74974 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SATINDER SINGH, No. 07-74974 Petitioner, Agency No. A072-135-065 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 6, 2010 ** Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Satinder Singh, 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. We have jurisdiction under governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, * 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). Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review. Singh does not raise any argument that he suffered past persecution, see Martinez-Serrano v. Holder, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-1260 (9th Cir. 1996), but contends he has a well-founded fear of persecution based on having witnessed a riot from his roof-top in 1984, and based on the harm his father suffered after Singh left India. Substantial evidence supports the agency s finding that Singh has not established a well-founded fear of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002) ( [T]he IJ and the BIA are entitled to rely on all relevant evidence in the record, including a State Department report, in considering whether the petitioner has demonstrated that there is good reason to fear future persecution ). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 07-74974

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.