FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DILIPKUMAR AMBALAL PATEL, No. 09-70205
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-908-186
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Dilipkumar Ambalal Patel, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Gonzalez-
Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if Patel
established past persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground, the
government established by a preponderance of the evidence that he could
reasonably relocate within India to avoid harm. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B); see also Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 998-99
(presumption was rebutted where the agency rationally construed country report
and provided an individualized analysis of the petitioner’s situation). Accordingly,
Patel’s asylum claim fails.
Because Patel failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed
to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Gonzalez -
Hermandez, 336 F.3d at 1001 n.5.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Patel failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
returned to India. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-70205