NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 asylum, 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 APPEALS
2 22-367

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”),1and ordered that 

Petitioner be removed from the United States to India. Reviewing the agency’s 

finding that Petitioner 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 

persecution 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 government-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 presumed that internal relocation would 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 persecution in 

1 Petitioner abandoned his claim for CAT relief when he failed to raise that 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 by 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 India 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 India, 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. Ashcroft, 

320 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION DENIED.