Sandhu, et al v. Holder, No. 08-70172 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JAN 20 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BALVIR KAUR SANDHU; et al., Petitioners, No. 08-70172 Agency Nos. v. A098-157-463 A098-157-464 A098-157-465 ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 10, 2011 ** Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Balvir Kaur Sandhu and her family, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order summarily affirming an immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). ( CAT ). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ s finding that, even if Sandhu was persecuted on account of a protected ground, the government rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution by establishing changed circumstances in India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1); see also GonzalezHernandez, 336 F.3d at 999-1001. The IJ rationally construed evidence in the record and provided a sufficiently individualized analysis of Sandhu s situation. See id. at 1000. Accordingly, petitioners asylum claim fails. Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See id. at 1001 n.5. Finally, substantial evidence also supports the IJ s denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they will be tortured if returned to India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 08-70172

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.