Tejinder Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 470 F. App'x 637 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 05 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TEJINDER SINGH, No. 09-71686
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-309-635
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Tejinder 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
*
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 is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998
(9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that, even though Singh
suffered past persecution, conditions have changed in India such that Singh no
longer has a well-founded fear of persecution. See Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d
at 1000-01 (individualized analysis of changed country conditions rebutted
presumption of well-founded fear). Accordingly, Singh’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims fail. See id. at 1001 fn. 5.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Singh’s unexhausted claim that he is
eligible for humanitarian asylum. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th
Cir. 2004).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief,
because Singh failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured
if he returned to India. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.
2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 09-71686