Case Name: Lovejit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-22
Citations: 473 F. App'x 641
Docket Number: No. 09-71974
Parties: Lovejit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 641–642

Head Matter:
Lovejit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71974.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2012.
Filed May 22, 2012.
Katherine Lesley Curtis, Adila Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Lance Lomond Jolley, Esquire, Trial, 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: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, 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
Lovejit Singh, 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 the agency's factual findings. Kumar v. INS, 204 F.3d 931, 933 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that Singh failed to meet his burden of establishing past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a); see also Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-77 (9th Cir. 2009). In the absence of past persecution, Singh's humanitarian asylum claim necessarily fails. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(iii).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.