Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0532-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bharti Chhaganlal PARMAR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-72675.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted July 13, 2007.
    Filed July 30, 2007.
    Garish Sarin, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Patricia K. Buchanan, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and SANDOVAL, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Brian E. Sandoval, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

1. In denying Parmar’s asylum claim, the BIA concluded that Parmar had failed to show an objective basis for a well-founded fear of persecution. Because the record does not compel a contrary conclusion, the BIA’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir.2006).

2. Because Parmar failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof required to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir.2004).

3. Parmar’s due process rights were not violated because there is no evidence in the record that the IJ was biased against Parmar, or that Parmar was prejudiced. See Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620-21 (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.