FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOGINDER SINGH, No. 07-71664
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-399-773
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 21, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, BEEZER and HALL, Circuit Judges.
Joginder Singh (“Singh”), a native and citizen of India, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of an
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision ordering him removed from the United States.
Singh had applied for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Convention Against Torture. The BIA affirmed and adopted the IJ’s decision,
concluding that the government had sufficiently rebutted the presumption that
Singh has a well-founded fear of future persecution if he returns to India.
We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and
we deny Singh’s petition.
The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.
I
“When the BIA affirms and adopts an IJ’s decision, [we review] the decision
of the IJ.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009).
We will uphold the BIA’s decision if it is “supported by reasonable,
substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Abebe v.
Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Substantial evidence exists “unless any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
II
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the presumption of
a well-founded fear of persecution was sufficiently rebutted.
In order to qualify for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate that he
suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution on
account of an enumerated ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Even when an
alien establishes past persecution, the alien will still be denied asylum relief if the
government establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there has been a
fundamental change in circumstances such that the alien no longer has a well-
founded fear of persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A) & (ii). Substantial
evidence supports a changed circumstances determination when the BIA
“rationally construes” the current country conditions and “provides an
‘individualized analysis of how changed country conditions will affect the specific
petitioner’s situation.’” Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th
Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted).
Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision to deny Singh’s
applications for asylum and withholding of removal.1 The country condition
reports indicate that persecution in the Punjab region on account of Akali Dal
Mann membership essentially ended as of the mid-1990s. The record indicates
that the IJ thoughtfully considered how these country conditions bore upon Singh
individually.
DENIED.
1
We do not address the BIA’s denial of relief under the Convention Against
Torture because Singh waived the issue by not raising it in his petition for review.
See Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir. 2007).