Case Name: Balbir Singh AUJLA, 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 729
Docket Number: No. 04-74514
Parties: Balbir Singh AUJLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 176
Pages: 729–730

Head Matter:
Balbir Singh AUJLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-74514.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2006.
Filed April 10, 2006.
Hardeep Singh Rai, Tsz-Hai Huang, George T. Heridis, Esq., Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Aviva L. Poczter, Esq., DOJ—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
Balbir Singh Aujla, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming 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 BIA's determination that Aujla is statutorily ineligible for asylum based on the one-year time bar. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 1218, 1221-22 (9th Cir.2005).
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 over Aujla's withholding of removal and CAT claims. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 861-62 (9th Cir.2001), we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of withholding of removal because Aujla's testimony regarding his successful relocation within India shows that he is not more likely than not to suffer persecution if returned to India. See id. at 867-68.
Likewise, substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of CAT relief because Aujla 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.