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NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 07 2010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
RAJESH VIKRAM DUTT, No. 07-73924
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-532-915
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.
Rajesh Vikram Dutt, 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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA denied Dutt’s asylum application claim as time-barred. Dutt does
not challenge this finding in his opening brief. See Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594
F.3d 701, 703 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (where applicant did not contest a finding of
untimeliness, issue is waived).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that even if Dutt established
past persecution, the government established by a preponderance of evidence that
Dutt could reasonably relocate within India, particularly given that his wife and
children are safely residing in Haryana, India. See Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d
1061, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2003) (the presumption of a country-wide threat of
persecution can be rebutted by showing that under all the circumstances the
applicant could reasonably be expected to relocate). Accordingly, Dutt’s claim for
withholding of removal fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Dutt failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not he will be tortured if
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.
2