FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 04 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SULAKHAN SINGH, No. 08-71442
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-823-351
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Sulakhan 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 and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
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 determination that, even if Singh
credibly established past persecution, any presumption of a well-founded fear was
rebutted by evidence that he could reasonably relocate within India. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B); Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 998-99 (presumption was
rebutted where the BIA rationally construed an ambiguous country report and
provided an individualized analysis of the petitioner’s situation). We reject
Singh’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider all relevant evidence. See
Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must
overcome the presumption that the agency has considered all the evidence); see
also Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[t]he [BIA] does
not have to write an exegesis on every contention.”) (internal quotes omitted).
Accordingly, Singh’s asylum claim fails.
Because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed
to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 1001 n.5.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-71442