Case Name: Kulwinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-01
Citations: 348 F. App'x 226
Docket Number: No. 06-73946
Parties: Kulwinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 348
Pages: 226–227

Head Matter:
Kulwinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73946.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Oct. 1, 2009.
Jonathan Myles Kaufman, Esquire, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
James A. Hurley, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kulwinder Singh, native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency denied Singh's asylum application claim as time barred. Singh does not challenge this finding in his opening brief.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that changed country conditions in India rebut Singh's presumption of a clear probability of persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(l)(i)(A); see Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285-86, 1288 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, Singh's withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief based on changed country conditions. See Sowe, 538 F.3d at 1288-89.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.