Bikramjit 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BIKRAMJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70653
Agency No. A095-576-833
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Bikramjit Singh, 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 jurisdiction under
FILED
FEB 15 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70653 2
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 finding that the government
rebutted Singh’s presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution by
establishing changed circumstances in India. See id. 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
contention that the BIA failed to consider all relevant evidence. See Lin v. Holder,
588 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A]lthough the BIA must consider a
petitioner’s evidence of changed country conditions, it need not expressly refute on
the record every single piece of 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
India. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1288-89 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --