Dinesh 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DINESH SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73431
Agency No. A040-149-432
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Dinesh Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
MAY 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-73431
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Singh does not allege past persecution. With respect to his fear of future
harm in India, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Singh
failed to establish a clear probability that he would be persecuted on account of his
Christian religion or his conversion to Christianity. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319
F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2003) (no compelling evidence that persecution of non-
political Albanians in Kosovo is so widespread that applicant faced a clear
probability of persecution). Accordingly, Singh’s withholding of removal claim
fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Singh has not
established that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by the government
or with the government’s consent or acquiescence if returned to India. See Soriano
v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Singh’s CAT claim
fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --