Case Name: Amit Kumar SHARMA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-18
Citations: 501 F. App'x 623
Docket Number: No. 08-72666
Parties: Amit Kumar SHARMA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 501
Pages: 623–624

Head Matter:
Amit Kumar SHARMA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72666.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 5, 2012.
Filed Dec. 18, 2012.
Inna Lipkin, Esquire, Counsel, Law Offices of Inna Lipkin, Redwood City, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Justin Robert Markel, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Amit Sharma petitions for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision denying his claims for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158 and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1281(b)(3). We deny the petition. Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recite it here.
The Board adequately addressed Shar-ma's claims of persecution based on membership in a particular social group as Sharma presented his arguments to the Board. To the extent Sharma argues that his claim of membership in a particular social group of his immediate family was distinct from his claim of membership in a particular social group consisting of people who violate the social norm of refusing to support their extended families, Sharma did not adequately " 'put the BIA on notice'" that these claims were separate. See Arsdi v. Holder, 659 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.2011) (quoting Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713, 721 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam)).
Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that Sharma failed to establish that he was persecuted on account of his membership in any purported social group and instead was persecuted on non-protected grounds. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-42 (9th Cir.2009).
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.