07-70406•Resham Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General
07-70406Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit14 de dez. de 2009
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
KV/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RESHAM SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70406
Agency No. A077-810-738
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Resham 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
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
KV/Research 07-70406 2
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, 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 finding that even if Singh were
credible, the government established by a preponderance of the evidence that Singh
could reasonably relocate within India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(ii); Sowe v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1286-87 (9th Cir. 2008) (the presumption of a
well-founded fear of persecution can be rebutted by showing that the applicant
could avoid future persecution by relocation). Accordingly, Singh’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 1001
n.5.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Singh failed to demonstrate that it was more likely than not he would be tortured if
returned to India. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.