Tirath 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TIRATH SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72055
Agency No. A098-528-306
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.
Tirath Singh, native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ 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 8
FILED
APR 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-72055 2
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence. Gonzalez-Hernandez v.
Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even if Singh is
credible and was persecuted on account of a protected ground, the government
rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution by
establishing changed circumstances in India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A)
and (ii); see also Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 998-1001. The agency
rationally construed evidence in the record and provided a sufficiently
individualized analysis of Singh’s future fear. See id. at 1000. We reject Singh’s
contentions that the BIA failed to consider all relevant evidence. See Larita-
Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must
overcome the presumption that the agency has considered all the evidence).
Accordingly, Singh’s asylum claim fails.
Because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed
to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Gonzalez-
Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 1001, n.5.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Singh failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured in

-- 2 of 3 --

09-72055 3
India. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1288-89 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence of
changed country conditions in Sierra Leone defeated CAT claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --