NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SABPREET SINGH, No. 16-71306 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-937-152 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. 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). 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 16-71306 16-71306 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Sabpreet Singh v. Merrick Garland 24 June 2022 Agency Unpublished d4d18ee52c0eb8d005f57569b22d134e514631a3
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals