NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMIT SHARMA, No. 20-70334
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-942-400
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Amit Sharma, 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
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if
Sharma established past persecution by members of the Badal party in Punjab, his
presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution was rebutted by evidence
that he could safely relocate to another part of India. See 8 C.F.R. §
1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B); Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 659-60 (9th Cir. 2019)
(discussing the analysis required to determine whether the government met its
burden to rebut the presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution by
demonstrating that an applicant could safely relocate). In his opening brief,
Sharma does not challenge the agency’s determination that relocation would be
reasonable. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013)
(concluding petitioner waived challenge to issue not specifically raised and argued
in his opening brief). Thus, Sharma’s asylum claim fails.
Because Sharma failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case, he did
not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Sharma failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or
2
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to India. See Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3