Case ID: f-appx_420/html/0684-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Surjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71251.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 9, 2011.
    Jaspreet Singh, Esquire, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
    
      Linda Y. Cheng, Trial, OIL, Susan Houser, Carl Henry McIntyre, Jr., Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Surjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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 finding that, even if Singh established past persecution on account of a protected ground, the government rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution by establishing changed circumstances in India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(l)(i)(4) and (ii); see also Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 998-1001. The agency rationally construed evidence in the record and provided a sufficiently individualized analysis of Singh’s situation. See id. at 1000. 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 id. 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 will be tortured if returned to India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.