Samra
Samra v. Gonzales
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Surjit Singh Samra (“Samra”), a native and citizen of India, entered the United States and timely applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) determined that Samra’s claims of political and religious persecution were not credible. We deny the petition for review.
To qualify for asylum, Samra was required to show he was unwilling to return to India “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution.” See Khup v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir.2004) (internal quotation omitted). To obtain withholding of removal, Samra was required to show he would more likely than not be subjected to persecution if forced to return to India. Id. at 905 . Finally, for Convention Against Torture relief, Samra had to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to his native country. Id. at 906 . Because the BIA affirmed without opinion, we look to the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. Ali v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 780, 784 (9th Cir.2005).
The IJ’s adverse credibility finding “may be reversed only if the evidence presented was so compelling that no reasonable…