Gurjinder Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURJINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71048
Agency No. A094-822-185
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Gurjinder 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
OCT 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

for substantial evidence factual findings, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039
(9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Singh’s untimely asylum
application is excused by changed circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4);
Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam); cf.
Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, Singh’s
asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even if Singh
established past persecution, the government has rebutted the presumption of a
clear probability of future persecution with evidence that he can reasonably
relocate. See Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1070 (9th Cir. 2003)
(presumption is overcome where a preponderance of the evidence shows “that the
applicant can reasonably relocate internally to an area of safety.”). Accordingly,
Singh’s withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-71048 2

-- 2 of 2 --