U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2007

Prasad v. Gonzales

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided April 18, 2007 · Bea, Clifton, Scannlain

228 F. App'x 714

Counsel

Bruce C. Wong, Esq., Duxford Law Group, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner., Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John C. Cunningham, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Judith Reed, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Office of The Associate Attorney General, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Narendra Prasad, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision that petitioner failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on an enumerated ground. Because petitioner was a victim of criminal activity, and there is no evidence that the crimes were motivated based on an enumerated ground, his asylum claim accordingly fails. See id. at 483-84,112 S.Ct. 812.

Because petitioner failed to exhaust his due process, withholding of removal, and CAT claims to the BIA, we dismiss the petition with regard to those claims. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.