PREM DEO V. ROBERT WILKINSON, No. 19-70257 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 25 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PREM CHAND DEO, No. Petitioner, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-70257 Agency No. A046-375-161 MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 17, 2021** Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Prem Chand Deo, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding him removable and denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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). We deny the petition for review. In his opening brief, Deo does not raise any challenge to the agency’s determination that he is removable, or to the agency’s dispositive determinations that he is ineligible for asylum due to his aggravated felony convictions under California Penal Code §§ 273.5(a) and 245(a)(1) and that he is ineligible for withholding of removal because the aggregate term of those convictions was imprisonment of at least five years. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Deo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Deo failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Fiji. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 19-70257
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.
