Jasbir Singh Mann v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JASBIR SINGH MANN,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72883
Agency No. A097-602-026
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Jasbir Singh Mann, native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of
a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
FILED
NOV 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-72883 2
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992). We deny
the petition for review.
Even if Mann’s asylum application was timely filed, his asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
conclusion that Mann can reasonably relocate to Bombay. See Melkonian v.
Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir. 2003).
Similarly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Mann
failed to establish his eligibility for CAT relief because he can safely relocate. See
Singh v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 435, 443 (9th Cir. 2003).
The government’s motion to strike the evidence submitted by Mann that is
not already contained in the administrative record is granted. See Fisher v. INS, 79
F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --