Gupta v. Ashcroft

Ninth Circuit

Gupta v. Ashcroft

109 F. App'x 948

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided September 23, 2004·No. No. 03-72025; Agency No. A77-424-744·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Ajay Gupta, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b). We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s determination that Gupta failed to demonstrate he either suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his political opinion or any other protected ground. See Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 861-62, 866-67 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition.

Whether or not Gupta could demonstrate past persecution, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that changed country conditions would allow Gupta to live unmolested in India. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998-99 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the [949]*949courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Ajay Gupta, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b). We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s determination that Gupta failed to demonstrate he either suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his political opinion or any other protected ground. See Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 861-62, 866-67 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition.

Whether or not Gupta could demonstrate past persecution, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that changed country conditions would allow Gupta to live unmolested in India. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998-99 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the [949]*949courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Gupta v. Ashcroft, 109 F. App'x 948 (9th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

109 F. App'x 948 (Gupta v. Ashcroft) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related