Amrinder Singh v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMRINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73547
Agency No. A089-716-975
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Amrinder 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-73547
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, 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 conclusion that even though
Singh established he experienced past persecution, the government rebutted his
presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution with evidence showing
that he can reasonably relocate to another part of India. See id. at 999-1001. We
reject Singh contentions that the IJ did not consider the evidence properly. See
Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 837 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The agency properly
performed its core functions of weighing conflicting evidence, bringing its
expertise to bear, and articulating the rationale underlying its decision.”). Thus,
Singh’s asylum claim fails.
Because Singh did not demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that he
did not satisfy 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 agency’s denial of Singh’s CAT
claim because Singh failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-73547
India. See Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2013). We
reject Singh’s contention that the IJ did not consider all evidence relevant to
possibility of future torture. See id. (the agency “may use its expertise in
considering contradictory and ambiguous country reports to decide which portions
of the report[s] are relevant to the applicant”) (internal quotation and citation
omitted) (modification in original).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --