Dilipkumar Ambalal Patel 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DILIPKUMAR AMBALAL PATEL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70205
Agency No. A078-908-186
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Dilipkumar Ambalal Patel, a 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
FILED
JUL 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-70205 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Gonzalez-
Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if Patel
established past persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground, the
government established by a preponderance of the evidence that he could
reasonably relocate within India to avoid harm. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B); see also Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 998-99
(presumption was rebutted where the agency rationally construed country report
and provided an individualized analysis of the petitioner’s situation). Accordingly,
Patel’s asylum claim fails.
Because Patel failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed
to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Gonzalez -
Hermandez, 336 F.3d at 1001 n.5.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Patel 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, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --