Case Name: Vipan SONI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-03
Citations: 315 F. App'x 672
Docket Number: No. 06-74562
Parties: Vipan SONI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 315
Pages: 672–673

Head Matter:
Vipan SONI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74562.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
Filed March 3, 2009.
Jose A. Bracamonte, Law Offices of Jose A. Bracamonte, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Marion Guyton, Esquire, Trial, Brooke Maurer, Trial, OIL. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel Phoenix, Esquire, Office of the District Director, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Vipan Soni, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Kozulin v. INS, 218 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's conclusion that any harm the police may have inflicted upon Soni was the result of a police investigation of a robbery, see Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1044 (9th Cir.2004), and none of Soni's other experiences constituted persecution, see Mendez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865, 870 n. 6 (9th Cir.2003). Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Soni has not established a well-founded fear of persecution if he returns to India. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995). Accordingly, Soni's asylum claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.