Surwinder Singh v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SURWINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71249
Agency No. A200-943-237
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Surwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
* 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 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-71249
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Singh did not
establish that his past harm from Congress Party members rose to the level of
persecution. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005)
(record did not compel the conclusion that petitioner’s past harm constituted
persecution); see also Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006)
(brief detention, beating and interrogation did not compel a finding of past
persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Singh
failed to demonstrate that his fear of future persecution was objectively reasonable.
See Aruta v. INS, 80 F.3d 1389, 1395 (9th Cir. 1996) (petitioner did not establish
objectively reasonable fear of persecution where similarly situated family member
remained unharmed in the “alleged zone of danger”). Thus, Singh’s asylum claim
fails.
In this case, because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed
to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at
1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Singh failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-71249
returned to India. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --