T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d byN i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T SUKH NA ND SI NG H; KU LW I ND ER K A U R; A BH I N A V SI N G H SU N N A R, P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J R ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 72472 A ge nc yN os . A 098- 150- 769

A 098- 150- 770 A 098- 150- 771 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

O r de r s of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r3, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , G R A B E R , an dG O U L D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S ukhna nd S i ngh ( S i ngh) , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of I ndi a , a nd hi s de r i va t i ve benefi ci ar i es K ul w i nd erK aur and A bh i nav S i ng h S un nar ( col l ec t i vel y P et i t i on er s) , s e e kr e v i e w o f

th e Bo a r d o f

I mmi g r a t i o n A p p e a l s ’ ( BI A ) r e j e c t i o n o f

th e i rc l a i ms fo r asyl u m , w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al , an drel i ef u n d er th e C o n v en t i o n A g ai n st 

# FI LED DE C 13 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

T o rtu r e ( C A T ) . P e titio n e r s a s s e rt c la im s a s to b o th I n d iaa n dth e P h ilip p in e s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r8 U. S . C . § 1 2 5 2 , a n dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B I A di d notc onduc ti m pe rm i s s i bl e f a c t - f i ndi ng w he n i te xa m i ne d the I J ’s f in d in g s a n d th e r e c o r d to d e te rm in e th a t P e titio n e r s d idn o t q u a lif yf o rr e lie f . See R i do re v. H

older , 69 6 F . 3d 90 7, 91 9, 92 1– 22 (9th C i r. 20 12 ) ( concl ud i ng that th e B IA p ro p er ly d ef

erre d to th e I J’s f

ac t-fin d in g w h en itco n sid er ed th e I J’s fi nd i ng s and the re cord). S i m i l ar l y, w e f i nd no thi ng i n the re cord thatsugg es t s that th e B I A d idn o t c o n s id e ra ll r e le v a n t e v id e n c e d u r in g its r e v ie w . See C ol e v . H older , 65 9 F . 3d 76 2, 77 1 (9th C i r. 20 11 ) ( ho l di ng thata “ generalst at em entthat the agency c on si dere d al l the evi dence before i tm aybe suff i ci ent ” ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks and b ra cket s om i tt ed)) . S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the B I A ’ s f i ndi ngs tha tS i ngh i s i ne l i gi bl e f or a s y l um be c aus e he w a s f i rm l yr e s e tt l e d i n the P hi l i ppi ne s be f or e a rr i vi ng i n the U n ite d S ta te s a n d th a t P e titio n e r s f a ile dto e s tab lis h th a t o n e o f th e e x c e p tio n s to f irm r e s e ttle m e n t ap p lie d to th e m . See M ah arajv. G on zales , 450 F . 3d 961, 967 (9th C i r. 20 06 ) ( en banc) (hol di ng thata f i nd i ng of fi rm re se tt l em enti s r evi ew ed for s ub st ant i al evi dence). S ub st ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the B IA ’ s det erm i nat i on thatP et i t i on er s are in e lig ib le f

o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l f

r o m I n d ia . A lth o u g h it is ac lo s e c a ll3

w hether S i ng h est abl i shed a nexus betw ee n the po l i ce ac t i vi ty and the prot ec t ed grou nd of i m pu t ed po l i t i ca l op i ni on , the re cord do es no tcom pel us t o con cl ud e that th e I n d ia n p o lic e w e r e e n g a g e d in ille g itim a te a c tiv ityw h e n th e ya rr e s te dS in g h . Se e D in u v . A s h c r o

ft , 372 F . 3d 1041, 1044–45 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( s t a t i ng tha tthe pe t i t i one rbe a r s the bur de n of s how i ng apol i c e i nve s t i ga t i on ha s no “ bonaf i de obj ec t i ve”) . S ub st ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the B IA ’ s det erm i nat i on thatP et i t i on er s are i ne l i gi bl e f

orC A T r e l i e f

f r om I ndi a . T he r e c or d doe s notc om pe l the c onc l us i on thatthe abuse S i ng h end ured i n Ind i a c on st i tut ed t orture. 8 C . F . R . § 1 20 8. 18 (a )( 2); se e A hm ed v. Keisler , 504 F . 3d 1183, 1200–01 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( c onc l udi ng tha tno t orture occurr ed w hen the pet i t i on erw as arre st ed and b ea t en on four occas i on s) . S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the B I A ’ s di s m i s s a l of P e t i t i one r s ’ c l a i m s f

or a s y l um , w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l , a nd C A T pr ot e c t i ons f r om the P hi l i ppi ne s . S i ngh di d n otshow thatthe re cord com pel s the concl usi on thatthe robb ery or r epea t ed thr e a t s i n the P hi l i ppi ne s w e r e on a c c ountof apa rt i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup orhi s r a c e or r e lig io n . Se e Sa n g h a v . I NS , 10 3 F . 3d 14 82 , 14 86 –8 7 (9th C i r. 19 97 ). M oreover, th e e v e n ts in th e P h ilip p in e s d o n o t e s tab lis h p a s t p e r s e c u tio n o rs u p p o rt aw e llf o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . Se e G o rm le yv . A s h c r o

ft , 364 F . 3d 1172, 1177 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( s t a t i ng tha t“ [ r ] a ndom , i s ol a t e d c r i m i na l a c t s pe rpe tr a t e d by4

a nony m ous thi e ve s do note s t abl i s h pe r s e c ut i on” ) . L i ke w i s e , the thr e a t s a nd r o b b e rya r e in s u f

f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt ac la im f o rp r o te c tio n s u n d e rC A T . See G uiv. I NS , 28 0 F . 3d 12 17 , 12 22 –2 3, 12 30 (9th C i r. 20 02 ) ( concl ud i ng thatre peat ed h a r a s s m e n t a n d th r e a ts , a n d tw o s ta g e dh it- a n d - ru n a c c id e n ts d idn o t c o n s titu te t orture) . T h e p et i t i o n fo r rev i ew i s D EN I ED .