Case Name: Dulla SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-07
Citations: 325 F. App'x 568
Docket Number: No. 05-72874
Parties: Dulla SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 325
Pages: 568–568

Head Matter:
Dulla SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72874.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 5, 2009.
Filed May 7, 2009.
Inna Lipkin, Law Offices of Inna Lipkin, Castro Valley, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Martha M. Pacold, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON, Senior District Judge.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable James K. Singleton, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Dulla Singh ("Singh") seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision affirming the Immigration Judge's ("U") denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that Singh failed to establish a nexus between the alleged harm and a protected ground. Singh's own testimony established that the Indian authorities detained and questioned him as part of an investigation into the location of a militant's cache of weapons. See Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1043-44 (9th Cir.2004) (presumption of persecution for political opinion "arises only where there appears to be no other logical reason for the persecution at issue"). Although the tactics allegedly employed by the Indian police were reprehensible, they "were nevertheless directed at the legitimate goal" of locating an illegal cache of weapons. See id. at 1044. As the record fails to compel a contrary finding, we are bound to uphold the BIA's determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).
Because Singh failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, it necessarily follows that he failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 960-61 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Circuit Rule 36-3.
. We lack jurisdiction over Singh's CAT claim because he failed to present it to the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).