Case Name: Raghbir Singh NAVEEN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-16
Citations: 104 F. App'x 51
Docket Number: No. 03-71979; Agency No. A76-847-291
Parties: Raghbir Singh NAVEEN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before HAWKINS, THOMAS and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 51–52

Head Matter:
Raghbir Singh NAVEEN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-71979.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2004.
Decided July 16, 2004.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, District Director, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Phoenix, AZ, John C. Cunningham, Cindy S. Ferrier, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before HAWKINS, THOMAS and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Raghbir Singh Naveen, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA's denial of asylum for substantial evidence and may reverse only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that petitioner did not suffer past persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution. Any mistreatment that petitioner experienced in India stemmed from a personal dispute after petitioner wrote a newspaper article in which he exposed actors involved in a prostitution ring, rather than based on an enumerated ground. See id. at 483-84. Accordingly, it follows that petitioner did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule36-3.