Gurminder Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURMINDER SINGH, No. 13-70442
Petitioner, Agency No. A071-948-095
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 13, 2014**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Gurminder Singh, 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
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings,
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that even if Singh
established past persecution, his presumption of well-founded fear of future
persecution is rebutted by the reasonable possibility of internal relocation. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(ii); see also Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d
995, 999-1000 (9th Cir. 2003) (presumption of future fear rebutted). We reject
Singh’s contention that the IJ did not conduct a sufficiently individualized analysis
of his situation. See id at 1000. Thus, Singh’s asylum claim fails.
Because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of
removal claim necessarily fails. See Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 1001 n.5.
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Singh failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if
returned to India. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011)
(likelihood of torture is speculative). Singh’s contention that the agency did not
consider all of the evidence relevant to possibility of future torture is not supported
by the record. Thus, Singh’s claim for protection under CAT fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-70442