### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 60 480 Summary Calendar

HARDEEP SINGH , Petitioner

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.; U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A205 97 3 984

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Hardeep Singh , a native and citizen of India, petit i ons for review of the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh admitted that he is removable , but he contends that, if he is removed to India, he will face persecution and torture because he is a Sikh who supports a S i kh political party. The immigration judge (IJ) presumed that Singh had experienced past persecution but found that the

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 24, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-60480 Document: 00513019544 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2015N o. 14

- 60 480
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had presented documentary evidence showing that Singh could avoid future persecution or torture by relocating within India

. The Board of Immigration A ppeals (BIA) agreed and dismissed Singh’s appeal. First, Singh argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla v. Kentucky , 559 U.S. 356 (2010), because he proceeded pro se before the IJ. He also argues that a remand is necessary to address the very recent changes in the country conditions in India . We can review a final order of r emoval only when “ the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies avai lable to the alien as of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). “ Failure to exhaust an issue creates a juris dictional bar as to that issue.” Roy v. Ashcroft , 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Omari v. Holder , 562 F .3d 314, 324

- 25 (5th Cir. 2009)

. Because Singh did not raise either of these issue s before the BIA, and because he does not establish an exemption from the exhaustion requirement, we lack jurisdiction to consider them

. See § 1252(d)(1); Roy , 389 F.3d at 137 ; see also Goonsuwan v. Ashcrof t , 252 F.3d 383, 390 (5th Cir. 2001)

. Accordingly, these portions of Singh’s petition for review are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

. Next, Sing h argues that the BIA erred in determining that he had not established his eligibility for asylum, withholdi ng of removal, and CAT protection. We review the factual determination that an alien is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT under the substantial evidence standard. See Chen v. Gonzales , 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). It is the petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. See Zhao v. Gonzales , 404 F.3d 295, 30 6 (5th Cir. 2005)

. The IJ found that Singh could relocate within India to avoid the persons and harm he fears. The BIA concluded that the IJ’s findings were

2 Case: 14-60480 Document: 00513019544 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2015N o. 14

- 60 480

supported by the record. Singh is not entitled to asylum because he fails to show that the evidence compels a findi ng that he has a “ well

- founded fear ” o f persecution. See Sharma v. Holder , 729 F.3d 407, 411

- 13 (5th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, he cannot make the more difficult showing of an objective “ clear probability” that he will be persecuted , as is required for wit hholding of removal. See Majd v. Gonzales , 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006). With respect to the denial of relief under the CAT, Singh can avoid the likelihood o f torture , as well as persecution, by relocating within India. See id. at 595

- 96

. Because S i ngh has failed to show that the evidence compels a ruling in his favor concerning asylum, withholding of removal , or relief under the C AT , s ee Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005) , t his portion of h is petition for review is denied

. For t he foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part

.

3 Case: 14-60480 Document: 00513019544 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/24/2015