Surinder Paul v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SURINDER PAUL
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72145
Agency No. A079-248-868
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Surinder Paul, 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 asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
APR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-72145 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Gonzalez–Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir. 2003), and
we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that even if Paul suffered
past persecution, the government established by a preponderance of the evidence
that he can reasonably relocate to another part of India. See id. at 1000
(presumption of well-founded fear can be rebutted if the government can show the
applicant could reasonably be expected to relocate). We reject Paul’s contention
that the agency mischaracterized the background documentation. See id. at 1000-
01 (agency may construe “an ambiguous or somewhat contradictory country
report”). Further, although Paul challenges the agency’s treatment of his affidavits,
he does not argue this impacted the agency’s relocation analysis. In light of our
conclusions, we need not address Paul’s contentions regarding the affidavits.
Thus, his asylum claim fails.
Because Paul did not demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that he
did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Rostomian v. INS, 210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir. 2000).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT
protection because Paul failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be

-- 2 of 3 --

11-72145 3
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Indian government. See
Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006) (denying CAT relief where
petitioner did not show inability to relocate internally). We reject Paul’s
contention that the BIA improperly or inadequately analyzed his CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --