Case Name: Baljinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-29
Citations: 360 F. App'x 858
Docket Number: No. 07-71357
Parties: Baljinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 858–859

Head Matter:
Baljinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71357.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Dec. 29, 2009.
Inna Lipkin, Esquire, Counsel, Law Offices of Inna Lipkin, Redwood City, CA, for Petitioner.
Andrew C. MacLachlan, OIL, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Baljinder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that the severity of the harm Kaur experienced in India, including her brief detention and physical mistreatment, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir.1995). Substantial evidence also supports the agency's finding that Kaur does not face a well-founded fear of future persecution, because her fear of future harm is too speculative. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003).
Since Kaur did not establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Kaur failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not that she would face torture if returned to India. See Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1122-23 (9th Cir.2004) (denial of CAT relief supported based upon the possibility of internal relocation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.