Case Name: Kanwardeep SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-16
Citations: 171 F. App'x 203
Docket Number: No. 04-73346; Agency No. A78-390-868
Parties: Kanwardeep SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 171
Pages: 203–203

Head Matter:
Kanwardeep SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-73346.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2006.
Decided March 16, 2006.
Mohinder Singh, Esq., Walnut Creek, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Andrew C. MacLaehlan, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kanwardeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT").
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's determination that Singh is statutorily ineligible for asylum based on the one-year time bar. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 1218,1222 (9th Cir.2005).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 over Singh's withholding of removal and CAT claims. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001), we deny Singh's claims.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's denial of withholding of removal because Singh did not establish that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted in India. See id.
Likewise, substantial evidence supports the IJ's denial of CAT relief because Singh did not establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured in India. See El Himri v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
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.