Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0582-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bhag DULAT, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-70173.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2007.
    
    Filed Aug. 20, 2007.
    Bhag Dulat, Sun Land, CA, pro se.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mark C. Walters, Esq., Arthur L. Rabin, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bhag Dulat, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order that affirmed without opinion an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) ruling denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of Dulat’s asylum claim because his testimony was vague, lacking in detail, evasive and not responsive to questions regarding his political activity in India. Cf Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129, 1137 (9th Cir.2005). Because Dulat did not establish that he is eligible for asylum, he necessarily does not qualify for withholding of removal. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004).

We lack jurisdiction to entertain Dulat’s CAT claim because he did not present it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

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