Kumar

Kumar v. Gonzales

Good Law
126 F. App'x 414
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 13, 2005No. 03-71831; Agency Nos. A72-399-363, A72-399-364California398 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Lead petitioner Neeraj Kumar and his wife Sumeeta Kumar, both natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“U”) denial of their application for asylum and withholding of deportation. 1 Because transitional rales apply, Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s denial of an application for asylum on the ground that the alien has not established eligibility, see Meza-Manay v. INS, 139 F.3d 759, 762 (9th Cir.1998), and we deny the petition for review.

Even assuming that Kumar’s testimony was credible, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Kumar lacked a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir.2003). The 1996 and 1997 State Department reports show that life in Punjab for both Sikhs and non-Sikhs is currently normal, while the political alliance between Kumar’s former party, the BJP, and Akali Dal shows that there are no longer the old rifts between Sikhs and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.