FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS
AMARPREET SINGH VIRK, No. 08-72670
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-599-564
v.
ORDER
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The government's petition for panel rehearing is granted.
The memorandum disposition filed on August 16, 2011 is withdrawn. A
replacement memorandum disposition denying the petition for review is being
filed concurrently with this order.
Any further petition for panel rehearing may be filed within 45 days of the
filing of this order.
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMARPREET SINGH VIRK, No. 08-72670
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-599-564
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 11, 2011**
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Amarpreet Singh Virµ, 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. y 1252. We review for substantial evidence. Lopez v.
Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 805 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that the
presumption of countrywide persecution was rebutted by evidence Virµ could
reasonably relocate within India. See 8 C.F.R. y 1208.13(b)(i)(B). Specifically,
the 2004 United Kingdom report states Indian citizens, including Siµhs, can move
freely thoughout the country, and that local police do not have the resources or
ability to perform checµs on people arriving from other parts of India. We reject
Virµ's contention that the agency failed to properly apply the presumption of
country-wide persecution, and we reject his contention that the agency erred by
requiring Virµ rather than DHS to prove internal relocation was reasonable,
because the agency explicitly applied the proper presumption and burden of proof.
Accordingly, Virµ's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because
Virµ failed to demonstrate it was more liµely than not he will be tortured if
returned to India. See Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1122-23 (9th Cir. 2004)
(denying CAT relief based on the possibility of internal relocation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-72670