Dass v. Holder

402 F. App'x 265
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedNovember 1, 2010
Docket07-71109
StatusUnpublished

This text of 402 F. App'x 265 (Dass v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dass v. Holder, 402 F. App'x 265 (9th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Bishan Dass, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application 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, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that even if Dass’ testimony were credible and he established past persecution, the government established by a preponderance of evidence that Dass could reasonably relocate within India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(ii); Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1069-70 (9th Cir.2003) (presumption of a well-founded fear can be rebutted by showing that under all the circumstances the applicant could reasonably be expected to relocate). Accordingly, Dass’ claims for asylum and withholding of removal fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Dass failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to India. See Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1122-23 (9th Cir.2004) (denying CAT relief based on the possibility of internal relocation).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Arout Melkonian v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
320 F.3d 1061 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Silaya v. Mukasey
524 F.3d 1066 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
402 F. App'x 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dass-v-holder-ca9-2010.