Joga Singh v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOGA SINGH, No. 08-72591
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-139-449
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Joga 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
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Gonzalez-Hernandez v.
Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if Singh
credibly established past persecution, any presumption of a well-founded fear was
rebutted by evidence that he could reasonably relocate within India. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B); Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 998-99. Accordingly,
Singh’s asylum claim fails.
Because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed
to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 1001 n.5.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Singh failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned
to India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3); see also Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100,
1113 (9th Cir. 2006).
We reject Singh’s contention that the IJ failed to adequately consider his
documentary evidence. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.
2000) (petitioner must overcome the presumption that the agency considered all
the evidence).
2 08-72591
We decline to review Singh’s contention that he is eligible for humanitarian
asylum because the BIA did not review this claim, see Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364
F.3d 1013, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2004), and he does not contend the BIA erred in
failing to do so, see Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-72591