FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AVTAR SINGH, No. 07-73918
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-404-211
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
**
Submitted June 29, 2010
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Avtar 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).
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
established a well-founded fear of persecution, 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, 1287 (9th Cir.
2008) (“The presumption that an asylum applicant has a well-founded fear of
persecution can be rebutted . . . either by a showing that [t]he applicant could avoid
future persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country of
nationality.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In addition,
substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Singh’s presumptive
well-founded fear was rebutted by changed circumstances in India because the
BIA’s analysis of the State Department report was sufficiently individualized and
its resolution of potentially contradictory statements in the report was rational. See
Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 998-99. Accordingly, Singh’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. Id. at 1001 n.5.
Substantial evidence also 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
2
returned to India. See Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1122-23 (9th Cir. 2004)
(denying CAT relief based on the possibility of internal relocation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3