Surinder P. 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SURINDER P. SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70951
Agency No. A075-256-411
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Surinder P. Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
DEC 28 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70951 2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, 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 conclusion that conditions have
changed in India such that Singh no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution.
See id. at 1000-01. The agency rationally construed the recent country reports and
provided a sufficiently individualized analysis of Singh’s situation. See id.
Accordingly, Singh’s asylum claim fails.
Because Singh did not demonstrate his eligibility for asylum, it follows that
he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See id.
at 1001 n.5.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT protection because
Singh failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured in India. See
Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003). Singh’s contention that the
agency did not conduct a proper CAT analysis is not supported by the record.
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Singh’s humanitarian asylum claim
because he failed to raise this issue before the BIA. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d
1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --