Singh
Singh v. Ashcroft
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Karnail Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have partial jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We dismiss the petition for review in part and deny it in part.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Singh failed to file his asylum application within one year of arrival. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(3); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001).
. [2] For purposes of withholding of removal, the BIA’s reasoning entitles Singh to “a presumption that a ‘clear probability of persecution’ exists were he to return to India.” Singh v. Ilchert, 69 F.3d 375, 381 (9th Cir.1995). The BIA stated that “the record contains evidence demonstrating that country conditions in India have changed,” but did not provide an individualized analysis of “how any change in conditions in [India] would serve to rebut [Singh’s] particular fear of future persecution.” Garrovillas v. INS, 156 F.3d 1010, 1017 (9th Cir.1998).