BALJIT KUMAR V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-72289 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 02 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BALJIT KUMAR; JYOTI SHARMA, Petitioners, No. 12-72289 Agency Nos. A089-697-731 A089-697-732 v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 18, 2014** Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Baljit Kumar and Jyoti Sharma, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. * 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). We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if petitioners established past persecution by Punjab police, their presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution was rebutted by evidence that they could safely and reasonably relocate elsewhere in India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B); Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir. 2003) (presumption of a well-founded fear can be rebutted by showing that under all the circumstances the applicant could reasonably be expected to relocate); see also Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999-1000 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that agency has expertise to construe country reports). We reject petitioners’ contentions that the BIA improperly placed the burden on petitioners to establish well-founded fear, and that the IJ’s analysis of the reasonableness of relocation was based on speculation. Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails. Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 12-72289
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.
