TEJPAL SINGH, AKA Navtej Singh Mattu v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TEJPAL SINGH, AKA Navtej Singh
Mattu,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73384
Agency No. A200-941-167
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Tejpal 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
* 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).
FILED
DEC 14 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-73384
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that, even if Singh
was credible and established he suffered past persecution, Singh could relocate
safely in India, and that it would be reasonable for him to do so. See 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B); see also Gonzalez-Hernandez v.
Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal relocation finding supported
even in the face of somewhat contradictory or ambiguous background
information). We reject Singh’s contention that the agency did not conduct an
individualized analysis. Thus, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail.
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Singh failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by
the Indian government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya, 524 F.3d
at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --