Case Name: Rajiv SHARMA; Rakesh Sharma; Rajesh Sharma, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-24
Citations: 550 F. App'x 502
Docket Number: No. 09-73627
Parties: Rajiv SHARMA; Rakesh Sharma; Rajesh Sharma, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 550
Pages: 502–502

Head Matter:
Rajiv SHARMA; Rakesh Sharma; Rajesh Sharma, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73627.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 8, 2013.
Filed Dec. 24, 2013.
Jaspreet Singh, Esquire, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioners.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Lyle Davis Jentzer, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rajiv Sharma, Rakesh Sharma, and Rajesh Sharma petition for review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The order affirmed the denial by an immigration judge of the petitioners' applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition.
1. The record before the BIA did not compel the conclusion that the petitioners face a likelihood of persecution if removed to India. No petitioner has been harmed, harassed, or threatened by anyone in India, and when Rajiv Sharma and Rajesh Sharma returned to India in 2000, they had no problems with the police. The denial of the petitioners' applications for withholding of removal was therefore supported by substantial evidence.
2. The BIA also did not err in denying protection under the CAT. The record before the BIA did not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the petitioners will be tortured if they are returned to India.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.