Case Name: Satnam 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: 2013-01-22
Citations: 504 F. App'x 659
Docket Number: No. 10-73866
Parties: Satnam SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 504
Pages: 659–660

Head Matter:
Satnam SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73866.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dee. 10, 2012.
Filed Jan. 22, 2013.
Maleeha Haq, Rai & Associates, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Kiley L. Kane, Esquire, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Satnam Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
Singh contends that the BIA failed to state its reasons and show proper consideration of all factors and probative evidence concerning country conditions when denying relief under the Convention Against Torture. This contention is belied by the record, which reflects that the court properly considered all the relevant evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3); Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771-72 (9th Cir.2011); Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir.2001).
To the extent Singh challenges the BIA's February 8, 2007 order denying asylum and withholding of removal, we note that this court previously rejected those contentions in Singh v. Holder, 349 Fed. Appx. 237 (9th Cir.2009), and we decline to reconsider them. See Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.1991).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.