Case ID: f-appx_228/html/0714-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Narendra PRASAD, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-73397.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2007 .
    Filed April 18, 2007.
    Bruce C. Wong, Esq., Duxford Law Group, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John C. Cunningham, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Judith Reed, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Office of The Associate Attorney General, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Narendra Prasad, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of 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, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision that petitioner failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on an enumerated ground. Because petitioner was a victim of criminal activity, and there is no evidence that the crimes were motivated based on an enumerated ground, his asylum claim accordingly fails. See id. at 483-84,112 S.Ct. 812.

Because petitioner failed to exhaust his due process, withholding of removal, and CAT claims to the BIA, we dismiss the petition with regard to those claims. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

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