NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURKAMAL SINGH, No. 04-75870
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-314-259
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Gurkamal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if Singh
was credible and suffered past persecution, conditions for Sikhs in India have
changed such that Singh no longer has an objectively reasonable well-founded fear
of future persecution. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 1000
(9th Cir. 2003) (agency rationally construed country report and provided an
individualized analysis of how changed conditions will affect petitioner’s specific
situation). Thus, Singh’s asylum claim fails.
Because Singh failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, it
necessarily follows that he failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for
withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Singh’s
CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more like than not he would be
tortured if returned to India. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1288-89 (9th
Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 04-75870