NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JATINDER SINGH, No. 14-73200
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-108-126
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jatinder 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
*
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).
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of humanitarian
asylum. Belayneh v. INS, 213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that, even if Singh
established past persecution, the government rebutted the presumption of a well-
founded fear of future persecution by demonstrating that Singh could safely and
reasonably relocate to another part of India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B),
(ii), (b)(3). We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA erred in its internal
relocation analysis. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1286 (9th Cir. 2008)
(declining to second-guess an IJ’s construction of “an ambiguous or somewhat
contradictory” country report).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying humanitarian asylum.
See Vongsakdy v. INS, 171 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 1999) (humanitarian asylum
based on the severity of past persecution is “reserved for rare situations of
‘atrocious’ persecution”); Marcu v. INS, 147 F.3d 1078, 1080, 1082-83 (9th Cir.
1998) (finding no abuse of discretion in denying humanitarian asylum where
2 14-73200
petitioner was detained, interrogated, and beaten and had his home searched by
Romanian police multiple times and was harassed repeatedly for decades).
Because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed
to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453
F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because the record does not compel a finding that it is more likely than not that
Singh will be tortured if he is removed to India. See Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d
1056, 1066 (9th Cir. 2013).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-73200