NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 16 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURVIR SINGH SAMRA, No. 14-72854
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-515-911
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Gurvir Singh Samra, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review
of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming 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 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 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008),
and we deny the petition for review.
The agency found Samra established past persecution, but his presumption
of a well-founded fear of future persecution was rebutted with evidence that Samra
could safely and reasonably relocate within India to avoid harm. Substantial
evidence supports this finding. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3); Gonzalez-Hernandez
v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal relocation finding
supported even in the face of somewhat contradictory or ambiguous background
information). We reject Samra’s contentions that the agency’s analysis was
insufficient. Thus, his asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Samra failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Samra’s CAT
claim because Samra did not demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be
tortured in India by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government. See
Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2013).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-72854