Court Opinion

ID: 9485272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 10:54:10.20454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:57.127112
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM **
Sukhvinder Singh petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
We deny the petition.
1. Asylum. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the acts of violence against Singh’s parents were not sufficiently connected to Singh personally to constitute past persecution, or a well-founded fear of future persecution, on account of an imputed political opinion. See Sharma v. Holder, 633 F.3d 865, 870 (9th Cir.2011); Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1489-91 (9th Cir.1997). Singh was present at the family house when his father was abducted for the third time and “made to disappear.” Singh was also twice present when, after his mother attempted to investigate his father’s disappearance, the police conducted raids on her residence. The police did not attempt to speak to, arrest or physically harm Singh. Although they threatened Singh, telling his mother that “in case somebody from her family came forward that person would be killed and her son [Singh] would be killed first,” this threat was not on account of an imputed political opinion. Rather, it was meant only to silence the investigation into Singh’s father’s disappearance.
2. Withholding of Removal. Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Singh failed to establish the lesser requirement for asylum, substantial evidence necessarily supports the BIA’s conclusion that Singh failed to show that it was “more likely than not” that he that he would be subject to persecution on one of the specified grounds. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir.2009).
2. Convention Against Torture. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Singh failed to show that it is “more likely than not” that the government would torture Singh were he returned to India. See id. at 1067-68. As explained, Indian police have not imputed a political opinion to Singh. Furthermore, Singh’s mother and sisters, who have remained in India, have not been bothered by the police. Given that the police have not targeted Singh’s mother, who prompted the threat against Singh by investigating her husband’s disappearance, it is highly unlikely that the police have any continued interest in Singh.
PETITION DENIED.

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.