FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAGJIT SINGH, No. 07-71692
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-615-936
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.
Jagjit 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, Melkonian v. Ashcroft,
320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if
Singh’s asylum application were timely and his testimony were credible, the
government established by a preponderance of the evidence that Singh reasonably
could relocate to another area of India, particularly given that prior to his arrival in
the United States, he lived in Delhi for six months without incident. See 8 C.F.R. §
§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B); 1208.16(b)(3); see also Melkonian, 320 F.3d at 1069
(applicant who has demonstrated well-founded fear of persecution may be denied
asylum “where the evidence establishes that internal relocation is a reasonable
option under all of the circumstances”). Accordingly, Singh’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d
995, 999, 1001 n.5 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Singh’s CAT claim
because Singh failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if
returned to India. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-73079