N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SUR INDER

SINGH, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-74149 Age n c y No. A089-302-602 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

April 7, 2014 * * B e fore : TASHIM A , GR AB ER , a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Surinde r Singh, a native and c itiz e n of India , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ion for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have 

# FIL ED APR 10 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e fa c tua l findings. Ze haty e v . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006). W e re vie w for a

buse of disc re t ion thea ge n c y ’ s de n ia l of hum anita rian a sy lum . Be lay n e h v . IN

S , 213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th C ir. 2000). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t, e v e n if Singh e sta blishe d pa st pe rse c ution by Punja b polic e , his pre sum

ption of a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution wa s re butte d by e vide n c e tha

t he c ould sa fe ly

and re a s ona bly re loc ate e lse w he re in India . Se e8 C .F.R . § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B ); se e also Gonzale

z -He rnande

z v . Ashc roft , 336 F.3d 995, 999-1000 (9th C ir. 2003) (noting tha

t B IA ha s e xpe rtise to c onstrue c ountry re ports). C ontra ry to Singh’ s c onte ntions, the a ge nc y

provide d a

n individualiz e d a

na ly sis of Singh’ s c la i m

and the c ountry

c o nditions ev ide nc e in the re c ord in de te rm i ning tha t he c o uld sa fe ly and re a sona

bly re loc ate . S

e e Me lk onian v . Ashc roft , 320 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th C ir. 2003) (pre sum

ption of a we ll-founde d fe ar c an be re butte d by showing tha

t unde r a ll the c irc um sta

nc e s the a pplic ant c ould re a sona

bly be e xpe c te d to re loc ate ). Furthe rm ore , the a ge nc y did not a buse its disc re tion in de te rm ining tha t the pa st pe rse c ution Singh suffere d wa s not se ve re e nough to qualify for a grant of

1 2 - 7 4 1 4 9 2hum anita

rian a sy lum . Se e Be lay ne h , 213 F.3d a t 491. Ac c ordingly , Singh’ s a sy lum c la im

fa ils. B e c a use Singh ha s not e sta

blishe d e l igibility

for a sy lum , he ne c e ssa

rily c annot m e e t the m ore stringe nt sta nda rd for withholding of re

m ova l. Se eZe haty e , 453 F.3d a

t 1190. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f be c a u se Singh fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t it is more like ly

tha n not hewill betorture d by or with the c onse nt or a c quie sc e n c e of a gove rnm e nt offic ia l if he re turns to India . Se e Hasan v . Ashc roft , 380 F.3d 1114, 1122-23 (9th C ir. 2004). Fina lly , we re

je c t Singh’ s c o nte ntion tha t the a ge n c y

fa ile d to a de quate ly c onside r his e vide nc e . Se e Larita-Martine z v . IN S, 220 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th C ir. 2000) (pe titione r m

ust ove rc om e the pre sum

ption tha t the a ge nc y

c onside re d a ll the e vide n c e ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 4 1 4 9 3