NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AMRITPAL SINGH, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-72662 

Agency No. A205-421-899 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 3, 2019**

Portland, Oregon

Before: MURGUIA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ZIPPS,*** District Judge.

Amritpal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board 

of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the order of the Immigration 

Judge (IJ) denying his application 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.

** Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to Cancel Oral Argument and Submit 

Case on Briefs was granted on April 22, 2019.

*** The Honorable Jennifer G. Zipps, United States District Judge for the 

District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

FILED

AUG 7 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-72662 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review. 

1. Asylum is unavailable if an applicant can safely relocate to another part of 

his home country. INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 18 (2002). Substantial evidence 

supports the IJ’s conclusion that Singh—a member of the Mann Party, a Sikh 

separatist group—could reasonably relocate from Punjab to a different area within 

India. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[W]e must 

uphold the IJ’s determination if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and 

probative evidence in the record.”). The IJ relied on numerous sources, including 

Department of State country reports,1to conclude that Sikhs could safely relocate 

within India. Although Singh argued that he would be tracked by Punjab police if 

he attempted to relocate, the assertion is unsupported by specific evidence in the

record. 

2. Because Singh failed to establish that he was eligible for asylum, he 

necessarily failed to satisfy the higher burden for withholding of removal. See 

Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. 

3. Because substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Singh 

1

“U.S. Department of State country reports are the most appropriate and 

perhaps the best resource for information on political situations in foreign nations.” 

Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted).
3 16-72662 

could safely and reasonably relocate within India, he is not entitled to relief on his 

CAT claim. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 435, 443 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 8 

C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3)(ii)). 

4. The BIA declined to address the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. 

Consequently, we need not address Singh’s argument that the IJ’s determination 

was in error. See Regalado-Escobar v. Holder, 717 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 2013)

(“This court’s review of a BIA decision is limited to the decision itself, and does 

not include the IJ’s decision, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopted 

the IJ’s opinion.”).

PETITION DENIED.