Singh

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 25 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SUKHVINDER SINGH, No. 07-73919

Petitioner, Agency No. A096-489-398

v.

MEMORANDUM*

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted August 31, 2011 San Francisco, California

Before: FISHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WU, District Judge.**

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.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable George H. Wu, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. 1. Asylum. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the

acts of violence against Singh’s…

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…

dissenting:

1. Asylum and Withholding of Removal. I disagree that Singh’s persecution was not based on an imputed political opinion. The politically motivated acts of violence against Singh’s father, culminating in murder, and the physical assault on his mother for questioning his father’s disappearance, directly involved and affected Singh as a percipient witness and family member. Singh was also present when police told his mother that he would be the first one killed if the family continued its search for Singh’s father. This death threat, together with the violent and politi *619 cally motivated acts against Singh’s parents, amounted to persecution. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that threats specifically directed at the applicant, together with threats and physical violence directed at his family members, can rise to the level of persecution); see also Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that, in evaluating past persecution, an IJ is required to consider physical violence directed against family members that the applicant witnessed when he was a child).

Although Singh was not politically active himself,…