Amrinder Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Amrinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 (“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 even though Singh established he experienced past persecution, the government rebutted his presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution with evidence showing that he can reasonably relocate to another part of India. See id. at 999-1001 . We reject Singh contentions that the IJ did not consider the evidence properly. See Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 837 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The agency properly performed its core functions of weighing conflicting evidence, bringing its expertise to bear, and articulating the rationale underlying its decision.”). Thus, Singh’s asylum claim fails.