Bishan Dass v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BISHAN DASS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71109
Agency No. A078-959-416
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Bishan Dass, 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”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
NOV 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-71109 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Silaya v. Mukasey,
524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that even if Dass’ testimony
were credible and he established past persecution, the government established by a
preponderance of evidence that Dass could reasonably relocate within India. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(ii); Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1069-70 (9th
Cir. 2003) (presumption of a well-founded fear can be rebutted by showing that
under all the circumstances the applicant could reasonably be expected to relocate).
Accordingly, Dass’ claims for asylum and withholding of removal fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Dass failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not he will be tortured if
returned to India. See Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1122-23 (9th Cir. 2004)
(denying CAT relief based on the possibility of internal relocation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --