Case ID: f-appx_225/html/0632-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hoshiyar SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-70896.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2007.
    
    Filed March 21, 2007.
    Hoshiyar Singh, Kent, WA, pro se.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michael Jack Haney, U.S. Department of Justice, Dallas, TX, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hoshiyar Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision that affirmed the ruling of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

“Where, as here, the BIA reviews de novo the IJ’s decision, our review is limited to the decision of the BIA.” Garcia-Quintero v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir.2006). We review for substantial evidence, see Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition.

The BIA’s denial of Singh’s claim is supported by substantial evidence, because the record indicates that the police targeted Singh for arrest and interrogation as part of a bona fide investigation into militant activity. See Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1043-44 (9th Cir.2004).

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

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