Case Name: Xavier Piedade RODRIGUES, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-01
Citations: 249 F. App'x 593
Docket Number: No. 06-71821
Parties: Xavier Piedade RODRIGUES, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 249
Pages: 593–594

Head Matter:
Xavier Piedade RODRIGUES, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71821.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2007.
Filed Oct. 1, 2007.
Zeena Batliwalla, Sabey M. Abraham, Rai & Associates, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Xavier Piedade Rodrigues, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") that adopted and affirmed an immigration judge's order denying his applications 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, see Kozulin v. INS, 218 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir.2000), treating Rodrigues's testimony as credible. See Krotova v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1080, 1084 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition.
The record supports the conclusion that the only reason the Indian police arrested Rodrigues was because of a personal dispute he had with his girlfriend's father. Substantial evidence thus supports the BIA's denial of asylum on the ground that Rodrigues failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1489-90 (9th Cir.1997).
Because Rodrigues is not eligible for asylum, he is also not eligible for withholding of removal. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2005).
Because the record does not show that it is more likely than not that Rodrigues will be tortured if returned to India, substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of CAT relief. See id.
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.