Jaswinder Singh Dhillon 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JASWINDER SINGH DHILLON,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70283
Agency Nos. A097-118-050
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jaswinder Singh Dhillon, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
OCT 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-70283 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings and review de novo legal determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even if Dhillon
testified credibly and suffered past persecution, the government rebutted the
presumption that Dhillon has a well-founded fear of future persecution with
evidence of changed country conditions in India. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v.
Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]here the BIA rationally
construes an ambiguous or somewhat contradictory country report and provides an
individualized analysis of how changed conditions will affect the specific
petitioner’s situation, substantial evidence will support the agency determination.”
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). We do not reach Dhillon’s
contention that he cannot reasonably relocate within India because our review is
limited to the BIA’s reasoning. See Hassan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1121-22
(9th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that
Dhillon is not entitled to a humanitarian grant of asylum. See Kumar v. INS, 204
F.3d 931, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2000) (concluding that petitioner’s experiences,
including being stripped and fondled in front of her parents, punched and kicked,
forced to renounce her religion, and beaten unconscious, were not sufficiently

-- 2 of 3 --

10-70283 3
severe to warrant humanitarian asylum). Accordingly, Dhillon’s asylum claim
fails.
Because Dhillon has not established eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
cannot meet 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 determination that
Dhillon was not eligible for CAT relief. See Kumar v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1043,
1055-56 (9th Cir. 2006) (substantial evidence supported the agency’s denial of
petitioner’s CAT claim even though the petitioner suffered a month-long police
detention in India, during which he was consistently beaten with wooden sticks and
leather belts).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --