Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8642358
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Parmar v. Ashcroft
No. 8642358 · Decided July 30, 2007
No. 8642358·Ninth Circuit · 2007·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
July 30, 2007
Citation
No. 8642358
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** 1. In denying Parmar’s asylum claim, the BIA concluded that Parmar had failed to show an objective basis for a well-founded fear of persecution. Because the record does not compel a contrary conclusion, the BIA’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir.2006). 2. Because Parmar failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof required to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir.2004). 3. Parmar’s due process rights were not violated because there is no evidence in the record that the IJ was biased against Parmar, or that Parmar was prejudiced. See Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620-21 (9th Cir.2006). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
In denying Parmar’s asylum claim, the BIA concluded that Parmar had failed to show an objective basis for a well-founded fear of persecution.
Key Points
01In denying Parmar’s asylum claim, the BIA concluded that Parmar had failed to show an objective basis for a well-founded fear of persecution.
02Because the record does not compel a contrary conclusion, the BIA’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.
03Because Parmar failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof required to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
04Parmar’s due process rights were not violated because there is no evidence in the record that the IJ was biased against Parmar, or that Parmar was prejudiced.
Frequently Asked Questions
In denying Parmar’s asylum claim, the BIA concluded that Parmar had failed to show an objective basis for a well-founded fear of persecution.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Parmar v. Ashcroft in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on July 30, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8642358 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.