Gurpreet Singh v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURPREET SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72041
Agency No. A201-295-482
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Gupreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
* 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
FEB 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-72041
evidence the agency's factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, although Singh
established past persecution, the government rebutted Singh’s presumed well-
founded fear of future persecution with evidence that he could safely and
reasonably relocate within India to avoid harm. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3);
Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2003). We reject
Singh’s contentions that the agency’s relocation analysis was insufficient and that
the BIA failed to adequately address his argument that the IJ’s analysis was
insufficient. Thus, his asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed
to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --