Sabpreet Singh v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SABPREET SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71306
Agency No. A205-937-152
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Sabpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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
JUN 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-71306
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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Singh failed to
establish the harm he experienced or fears in India was or would be on account of a
protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an
applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see
also Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute,
standing alone, does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground).
Thus, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Singh failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to India. See Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).
We reject as unsupported by the record Singh’s contention that the agency
failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in the analysis of his claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --