Ghotra v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Ghotra v. Holder

324 F. App'x 609

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 27, 2009

DocketNo. 05-73087

StatusPublished

This text of 324 F. App'x 609 (Ghotra 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

Ghotra v. Holder, 324 F. App'x 609 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Gurdev Singh Ghotra, 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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that, even if Ghotra demonstrated past persecution, the government established by a preponderance of the evidence that it is reasonable for Ghotra to relocate. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3); see also Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998-99 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, Ghotra’s asylum claim fails.

Because Ghotra failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

[610]*610Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Ghotra failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii); see also Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.2006).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Ghotra’s claims that he is a member of a disfavored group and that he qualifies for humanitarian asylum because he failed to exhaust these claims before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

Finally, we decline to reach those issues raised for the first time by Ghotra in his reply brief. See Bazuaye v. INS, 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (“Issues raised for the first time in the reply brief are waived.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Gurdev Singh Ghotra, 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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that, even if Ghotra demonstrated past persecution, the government established by a preponderance of the evidence that it is reasonable for Ghotra to relocate. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3); see also Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998-99 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, Ghotra’s asylum claim fails.

Because Ghotra failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

[610]*610Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Ghotra failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii); see also Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.2006).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Ghotra’s claims that he is a member of a disfavored group and that he qualifies for humanitarian asylum because he failed to exhaust these claims before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

Finally, we decline to reach those issues raised for the first time by Ghotra in his reply brief. See Bazuaye v. INS, 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (“Issues raised for the first time in the reply brief are waived.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 F. App'x 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ghotra-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack