Surinder Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 489 F. App'x 223 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             DEC 28 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    SURINDER P. SINGH,                                No. 11-70951
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A075-256-411
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    **
    Submitted December 19, 2012
    Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    Surinder P. 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
    withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
    *
    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).
    (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction 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 conclusion that conditions have
    changed in India such that Singh no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution.
    See 
    id. at 1000-01
    . The agency rationally construed the recent country reports and
    provided a sufficiently individualized analysis of Singh’s situation. See 
    id.
    Accordingly, Singh’s asylum claim fails.
    Because Singh did not demonstrate his eligibility for asylum, it follows that
    he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See 
    id.
    at 1001 n.5.
    Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT protection because
    Singh failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured in India. See
    Malhi v. INS, 
    336 F.3d 989
    , 993 (9th Cir. 2003). Singh’s contention that the
    agency did not conduct a proper CAT analysis is not supported by the record.
    Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Singh’s humanitarian asylum claim
    because he failed to raise this issue before the BIA. See Tijani v. Holder, 
    628 F.3d 1071
    , 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                     11-70951
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-70951

Citation Numbers: 489 F. App'x 223

Judges: Fisher, Goodwin, Wallace

Filed Date: 12/28/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023