Raj Singh 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RAJ SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70913
Agency No. A097-108-196
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Raj 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
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
FILED
APR 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-70913 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence. Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d
924, 931 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even if petitioner
credibly demonstrated past persecution on account of a statutorily protected
ground, the government established by a preponderance of the evidence that
petitioner could reasonably relocate within India, including the Punjab, to avoid
harm. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B); see also Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320
F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Singh’s asylum claim fails. Id.
Because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed
to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Singh’s CAT
claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
returned to India. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --