Rajender Kumar v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAJENDER KUMAR,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70031
Agency No. A201-108-023
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Rajender Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-70031
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, although Kumar
established past persecution, the government rebutted Kumar’s presumption of a
well-founded fear of future persecution with evidence that he could safely and
reasonably relocate within India to avoid harm. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)-(3);
Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2003) (substantial
evidence supported finding that presumption of future persecution was rebutted).
Thus, Kumar’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Kumar failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at
1190.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Kumar’s CAT
claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Indian government. See
Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2013).
We reject Kumar’s contentions that the IJ failed to properly consider

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-70031
portions of his testimony.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --