Case Name: Ashok PATEL, a.k.a. Jayantilal Atmaran Shah, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-10-24
Citations: 22 F. App'x 724
Docket Number: No. 00-70828; INS No. A72-012-933
Parties: Ashok PATEL, a.k.a. Jayantilal Atmaran Shah, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 724–725

Head Matter:
Ashok PATEL, a.k.a. Jayantilal Atmaran Shah, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 00-70828.
INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 15, 2001.
Decided Oct. 24, 2001.
Before REINHARDT, GRABER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ashok Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum and withholding of exclusion and deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) and 1253(h). Because the transitional rules apply, see Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), this court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a).
We review factual determinations concerning a petitioner's eligibility for asylum under a substantial evidence standard, uphold the BIA's decision unless the evidence compels a contrary result. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); Sangha v.. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir.1997). We deny the petition for review.
To establish an imputed political opinion, Petitioner must show that his persecutors actually imputed a political opinion to him. Id. at 1487, 1489. He failed to offer any evidence of a political opinion, imputed or otherwise. See id.
Because petitioner did not meet the standard for asylum, he could not satisfy the standard for withholding of exclusion and deportation. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.1995).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.