NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANDEEP KUMAR,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 22

- 367 Agency No. A208

- 273

- 322

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 14, 2023 ** San Francisco , California Before: S.R. THOMAS, BEA, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Sandeep Kumar , a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) which dismissed Petitioner’s appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) who denied Petitioner’s applications for asylu m, withholding of removal, and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 367

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), 1 and ordered that
Petitioner be removed from the United States to India. Reviewing the agency’s finding that P etitioner could safely relocate within his country of origin for substantial evidence, see Dawson v. Garland , 998 F.3d 876, 878, 884

– 85 (9th Cir. 2021), we deny the petition for review.
1. Petitioner argues that the BIA failed to analyze whether his past

p ersecution was attributable to the national government of India, rather than a
state government. Petitioner forfeited this argument when he failed to raise it before the BIA. In addition, the argument is meritless: The BIA’s decision on whether the past persecution was attributable to the national government is irrelevant because the regulations in effect at the time of the BIA’s decision required the same presumptions and burdens in the relocation analysis upon any showing of past persecution, whether g overnment

- sponsored or not. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(ii) (2018) (“ In cases in which the persecutor is a government or is government

- sponsored, or the applicant has established persecution in the
past , it shall be presu med that internal relocation woul d not be reasonable, unless the Service establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that, under all the circumstances, it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate.” (emphasis added) ). Because the agency held that Petitioner suffered past perse cution in

1 Petitioner abandoned his claim for CAT relief when he failed to raise th at claim in his petition for review. Martinez

- Serrano v. I.N.S. , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259

– 60 (9th Cir. 1996).3 22

- 367

India, the agency’s failure to analyze whether the persecution was at the hands of the national government is irrelevant.
2. Petitioner’s arguments on the merits of the relocation analysis are meritless. The fact that petitioner was persecuted b y the national government of India does not compel the conclusion that internal relocation is impossible or
unreasonable

. See Kaur v. Wilkinson , 986 F.3d 1216, 1230 (9th Cir. 2021). On the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that state governments in Ind ia have greater control over law enforcement than the national government. The evidence also demonstrates that Petitioner’s attackers have not attempted to contact him
since 2017. The Government identified safe locations where Petitioner could live
in In dia, and the agency’s decision that relocation within India would be reasonable was supported by substantial evidence.

Because relocation within India would be reasonable, Petitioner is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal

. See Melkonian v. A shcroft , 320 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION DENIED.