Dhillon

MEMORANDUM ***

Khuldeep Singh Dhillon petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of the Im *583 migration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . Because “the BIA reviewed] the IJ’s decision de novo, our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Shah v. INS, 220 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2000). We review de novo Dhillon’s allegation of a due process violation, Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir.1994), which we find to be without merit. We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s determination that changed country conditions and the ability to relocate within India rebut the presumption that Dhillon has a well-founded fear of persecution, see Marcu v. INS, 147 F.3d 1078, 1081-82 (9th Cir.1998), and we deny the petition.

Dhillon claims his due process rights were violated because various transcription and interpretation errors resulted in lost testimony. Dhillon’s due process claim fails, however, because the outcome of his…