SONAM BHUTIA V. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., No. 08-73917 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED APR 26 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SONAM TOPGAY BHUTIA, Petitioner, No. 08-73917 Agency No. A098-132-089 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 19, 2013 San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Sonam Bhutia, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) final order of removal in which the BIA adopted an Immigration Judge s ( IJ ) decision denying Bhutia s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Bhutia never suffered persecution in India. See Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 337 (9th Cir. 2011). He contends that the persecution suffered at the hands of Nepalese authorities amounted to past persecution by Indian authorities. The IJ found that the conduct of the Nepalese authorities could not be imputed to the Indian authorities. There is no evidence compelling a contrary finding. Indian police once detained and slapped Bhutia s father, but this conduct was not persecutory. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019 21 (9th Cir. 2002). Nor did the death threat that Indian police indirectly communicated toward Bhutia amount to persecution. See Ruano v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1155, 1160 61 (9th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence thus supports the IJ s denial of Bhutia s application for asylum. Zhiqiang Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2011). With regard to Bhutia s claim for withholding of removal and protection under CAT, because substantial evidence supports the IJ s denial of Bhutia s asylum application, Bhutia cannot meet the more rigorous more likely than not standard necessary to establish eligibility for withholding of removal and CAT protection. See Sow v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1288 (9th Cir. 2008) (withholding); Hamoui v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 821, 827 (9th Cir. 2004) (CAT). Petition DENIED. 2
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.
