SATNAM SINGH V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-70343 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 15 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SATNAM SINGH, No. 11-70343 Petitioner, Agency No. A089-697-286 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 11, 2013 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges. Satnam Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing the appeal of an immigration judge s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We have jurisdiction under * 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). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA s finding that Singh s and his family s experiences did not rise to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (unfulfilled threats standing alone constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA s denial of asylum and withholding of removal because Singh failed to establish that he could not reasonably relocate within India. See GonzalezHernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Singh s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA s denial of Singh s CAT claim, because he failed to show a likelihood of torture at the instigation of, or with the acquiescence of the Indian government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 11-70343

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.