Case Name: Gurjeet KAUR, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-11
Citations: 637 F. App'x 304
Docket Number: No. 10-70323
Parties: Gurjeet KAUR, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 304–305

Head Matter:
Gurjeet KAUR, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-70323.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 9, 2016.
Filed Feb. 11, 2016.
Richard E. Oriakhi, Esquire, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.
Nairi Simonian Gruzenski, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, 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
Gurjeet Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Kaur failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Kaur was never personally persecuted in India. Her asylum application was based on her late husband's political opinions, for which he was arrested and detained by Indian police twice in the early 1980s. Since her husband's death in 1993, Kaur has remarried twice, and she has returned to India on numerous occasions over the years without incident. Kaur's similarly-situated family members also continued to reside in India and never experienced persecution there. Given the paucity of evidence suggesting that the Indian government ever imputed to Kaur, or would today impute to Kaur, her deceased husband's political views, the BIA did not err in concluding that Kaur's relationship to her ex-husband was insufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution if Kaur were returned to India. See Belayneh v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that substantial evidence supported agency's decision' to deny an asylum claim based solely on the applicant's estranged spouse's political beliefs).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.