Case Name: Ram SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-25
Citations: 103 F. App'x 182
Docket Number: No. 03-71368; Agency No. A72-483-687
Parties: Ram SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 182–183

Head Matter:
Ram SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-71368. Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2004.
Decided June 25, 2004.
Earle A. Sylva, George T. Heridis, Esq., Rai Law & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Coun sel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Marion E. Guyton, Attorney, John L. Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before LEAVY, THOMAS, 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
Ram Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision finding him excludable and ordering deportation. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). See Hose v. INS, 180 F.3d 992, 995 (9th Cir.1999). We review for substantial evidence. Barney v. Rogers, 83 F.3d 318, 320 (9th Cir.1996) (exclusion); Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000) (asylum and withholding of deportation). We deny the petition for review.
We affirm the IJ's decision, because substantial evidence in the record supports the conclusions that Singh was excludable, see Choe v. INS, 11 F.3d 925, 933 n. 7 (9th Cir.1993) (alien bears burden of proving exclusion is not warranted), and that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of deportation, see Pedro-Mateo, 224 F.3d at 1150-51.
Singh's remaining contentions lack merit.
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.