Case ID: f-appx_445/html/0019-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jagjeet Singh GILL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72277.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 21, 2011.
    Manpreet Singh Gahra, Ajai Mathew, Law Office of Manpreet Singh Gahra, Berkeley, CA, for Petitioner.
    Margaret Kuehne Taylor, David V. Ber-nal, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jagjeet Singh Gill, a native and citizen of India, petitions 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 jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir.1997), and we deny the petition for review.

Gill testified police searched for him because of their belief that he could become politically active like his father, their belief that Gill had connections to militants, their desire to take revenge for his father’s past political activities, and an investigation regarding a convict who escaped from jail. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Gill failed to establish that a protected ground was one central reason for the police’s interest in him. See id. at 1490-91; see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) (“[t]he REAL ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, Gill’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.2004).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Gill failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to India. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.