NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GAGANDEEP SINGH, No. 15-71549
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-817-442
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Gagandeep 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, including
humanitarian asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of humanitarian asylum, Belayneh v. INS,
213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir. 2000), and for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that although Singh
established past persecution, the government rebutted Singh’s presumed well-
founded fear of future persecution with evidence that he could safely and
reasonably relocate within India to avoid harm. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)-(3);
Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2003). The agency
did not abuse its discretion in denying humanitarian asylum because Singh failed
to show he suffered sufficiently severe past persecution. 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”). Thus,
Singh’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed
to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Singh’s CAT claim
2 15-71549
because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not that he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Indian government. See Alphonsus v.
Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2013).
We reject Singh’s contentions that the agency erred in its evaluation of his
evidence or in its analysis of his claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-71549