Case Name: Jit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-10
Citations: 176 F. App'x 719
Docket Number: No. 04-74603
Parties: Jit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 176
Pages: 719–720

Head Matter:
Jit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-74603.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2006.
Filed April 10, 2006.
Richard E. Oriakhi, Esq., Roman & Singh, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Audrey B. Hemesath, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, John C. Cunningham, Esq., Shelley R. Goad, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immi gration Appeals' decision summarily affirming an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal, and request for relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000), we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's conclusion that Singh is ineligible for asylum because he did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-82, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).
Because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 960-61 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).
Singh failed to raise his CAT claim in his opening brief, and therefore waived the claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.