Sonam Topgay Bhutia v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SONAM TOPGAY BHUTIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73917
Agency No. A098-132-089
MEMORANDUM*
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”).
FILED
APR 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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 of 2 --