Mann v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Mann v. Mukasey

406 F. App'x 99

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 22, 2010

Docket07-72883

StatusUnpublished

This text of 406 F. App'x 99 (Mann v. Mukasey) 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

Mann v. Mukasey, 406 F. App'x 99 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jasbir Singh Mann, native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition for review.

Even if Mann’s asylum application was timely filed, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Mann can reasonably relocate to Bombay. See Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir.2003).

Similarly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Mann failed to establish his eligibility for CAT relief because he can safely relocate. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 435, 443 (9th Cir.2003).

The government’s motion to strike the evidence submitted by Mann that is not already contained in the administrative record is granted. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jasbir Singh Mann, native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition for review.

Even if Mann’s asylum application was timely filed, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Mann can reasonably relocate to Bombay. See Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir.2003).

Similarly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Mann failed to establish his eligibility for CAT relief because he can safely relocate. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 435, 443 (9th Cir.2003).

The government’s motion to strike the evidence submitted by Mann that is not already contained in the administrative record is granted. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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)

406 F. App'x 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mann-v-mukasey-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack