NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KANWAR BHAN SINGH, No. 15-73202
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-421-720
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Kanwar 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
*
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).
jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that even if Singh
established past persecution, the presumption of a well-founded fear of future
persecution was rebutted by evidence that he could safely and reasonably relocate
to another part of India. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), 1208.16(b)(1)(i), (ii);
Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 659 (9th Cir. 2019) (government rebutted
presumption that life or freedom would be threatened on account of a protected
ground). Thus, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Singh failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to India. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We lack jurisdiction to consider
Singh’s contention that the IJ ignored evidence because he failed to raise the issue
before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004)
(court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 15-73202