Sukhwinder Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUKHWINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70101
Agency No. A088-548-940
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Sukhwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
FILED
DEC 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998
(9th Cir. 2003) and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that even though Singh
suffered past persecution, Singh’s presumption of a well-founded fear of future
persecution was rebutted by evidence that he can reasonably relocate to another
part of India. See Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1070 (9th Cir. 2003)
(presumption is overcome where a preponderance of the evidence shows “that the
applicant can reasonably relocate internally to an area of safety”); Gonzalez-
Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 999 (a period of relocation without harm is “highly
relevant”). We reject Singh’s contention that the agency mischaracterized the
background documentation. See Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 1000-01
(agency may rationally construe “an ambiguous or somewhat contradictory country
report”). Further, Singh fails to overcome the presumption that the agency
reviewed the evidence. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th
Cir. 2000). Thus, Singh’s asylum claim fails.
Because Singh did not demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that he
did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
2 13-70101

-- 2 of 3 --

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Singh failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to India. See Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Singh’s contention that he is eligible
for humanitarian asylum because he failed to raise it before the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-70101

-- 3 of 3 --