Case Name: Deep KAPOOR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-13
Citations: 158 F. App'x 70
Docket Number: No. 04-72338; Agency No. A77-433-915
Parties: Deep KAPOOR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, TASHIMA, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 70–71

Head Matter:
Deep KAPOOR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-72338.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 5, 2005.
Decided Dec. 13, 2005.
George T. Heridis, Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Paul Fiorino, Esq., DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, TASHIMA, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Deep Kapoor, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA's decision for abuse of discretion, and will not grant a petition "absent evidence which compels a contrary conclusion." Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir.1998). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Kapoor's new evidence did not establish prima facie eligibility for asylum. See Caruncho v. INS, 68 F.3d 356, 360-61 (9th Cir.1995). The affidavit Kapoor submitted in support of his motion was vague and the newspaper articles he submitted contained only general background information. Curiously, Kapoor cited those articles to the BIA in an attempt to demonstrate that persecution against Sikhs was on the rise, even though he testified at his asylum hearing that he, as a Hindu, had been persecuted because his father had spoken out against Sikh militants. See Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir.2005) (considering new evidence "together with evidence presented at the original hearing").
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 provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.