NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 revie w 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 t o 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, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 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, 1 to conclude that Sikhs could safely relocate

wi thin India. A lthough 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 fail ed to establish that he was eligible for asylum, he

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

Z ehatye , 453 F.3d at 1190

.

3. B ecause 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 mark s and citation omitte d).3 16

- 72662

could safely and reasonably relocate within India

, he is not entitle d 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. T he 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 R egalado

- Escobar v. Holder , 717 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 2013)

( “T his court’s review of a BIA decision is limited to the decision itself, and does

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

the IJ’s opinion.” )

.

PETITION DENIED

.