Pawan Singh-Chauhan v. Loretta E. Lynch , 656 F. App'x 337 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 1 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAWAN JOT SINGH-CHAUHAN, AKA No. 14-72856
Pawanjot Singh, AKA Pawanjot Singh
Chauhan, Agency No. A205-303-482
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Pawan Jot Singh-Chauhan, 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
*
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).
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006), and for abuse of discretion the denial of humanitarian asylum, Belayneh v.
INS, 213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that, even if Singh-
Chauhan demonstrated past persecution, he could safely relocate in India, and it
would be reasonable for him to do so. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B)
(asylum); 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B) (withholding of removal); Melkonian v. Ashcroft,
320 F.3d 1061, 1070 (9th Cir. 2003) (presumption overcome where preponderance
of the evidence showed applicant could “reasonably relocate internally to an area
of safety”); Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1264, 1267 (9th Cir. 2005) (prior
relocation without incident supported agency’s finding). We reject his
contentions that the agency erred in denying his request for humanitarian asylum in
light of his past mistreatment in India, see Marcu v. INS, 147 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th
Cir. 1998), or based on the possibility that he may suffer “other serious harm,” see
Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1288 (9th Cir. 2008);
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii). Thus, Singh-Chauhan’s asylum, including
humanitarian asylum, and withholding of removal claims fail.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
2 14-72856
because Singh-Chauhan failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Indian government. See
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-72856