Baljit Kumar; Jyoti Sharma v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BALJIT KUMAR; JYOTI SHARMA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72289
Agency Nos. A089-697-731
A089-697-732
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Baljit Kumar and Jyoti Sharma, natives and citizens of India, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for
asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
DEC 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if
petitioners established past persecution by Punjab police, their presumption of a
well-founded fear of future persecution was rebutted by evidence that they could
safely and reasonably relocate elsewhere in India. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B); Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir. 2003)
(presumption of a well-founded fear can be rebutted by showing that under all the
circumstances the applicant could reasonably be expected to relocate); see also
Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999-1000 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting
that agency has expertise to construe country reports). We reject petitioners’
contentions that the BIA improperly placed the burden on petitioners to establish
well-founded fear, and that the IJ’s analysis of the reasonableness of relocation was
based on speculation. Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily
cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye,
453 F.3d at 1190.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 12-72289

-- 2 of 2 --