Gurjit Singh v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70032
Agency No. A205-934-761
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Gurjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
* 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).
FILED
MAR 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-70032
Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Singh failed to
establish he experienced harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko
v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Persecution . . . is an extreme
concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as
offensive.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Hoxha v.
Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (unfulfilled threats constituted
harassment rather than persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s determination that Singh did not establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution. Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution “too
speculative”). Thus, Singh’s asylum claim fails.
We reject as unsupported by the record Singh’s contentions that the agency
violated his right to due process or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --