Chodha 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CHODHA SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73848
Agency No. A077-844-388
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Chodha 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
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
JUL 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-73848 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings,
Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the petition
for review.
The evidence does not compel the conclusion that Singh established changed
or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Accordingly, Singh’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that changed country
conditions in India rebut Singh’s presumption of a clear probability of persecution.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(A); Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285-86,
1288 (9th Cir. 2008) (changed country conditions finding supported by
individualized analysis based on country reports). Accordingly, Singh’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
based on changed country conditions. See Sowe, 538 F.3d at 1288-89.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --