Sandeep Singh v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANDEEP SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71724
Agency No. A200-945-577
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Sandeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-71724
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we review
for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of humanitarian asylum, Belayneh v.
INS, 213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir. 2000). We review de novo due process
contentions. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008).
We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s request for
humanitarian asylum based on his past mistreatment in India. See Belayneh, 213
F.3d at 491 (record lacked evidence of atrocious past persecution).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if he
credibly established past persecution, the presumption of future persecution was
rebutted by evidence that he could relocate within India and it would be reasonable
for him to do so. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B) (asylum); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B) (withholding of removal); see also Gonzalez–Hernandez v.
Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999-1000 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting “an individual who can
relocate safely within his home country ordinarily cannot qualify for asylum”).
We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA improperly allocated the burden of proof
for internal relocation. Thus, we deny the petition as to Singh’s asylum and

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-71724
withholding of removal claims.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Singh’s CAT claim
because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to India. See
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, we reject Singh’s contentions that the BIA ignored evidence, see
Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006), or otherwise violated
his due process rights, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --