TEJPAL SINGH V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-73384 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 14 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TEJPAL SINGH, AKA Navtej Singh Mattu, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 13-73384 Agency No. A200-941-167 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 9, 2015** Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Tejpal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction * 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). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that, even if Singh was credible and established he suffered past persecution, Singh could relocate safely in India, and that it would be reasonable for him to do so. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B); see also Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal relocation finding supported even in the face of somewhat contradictory or ambiguous background information). We reject Singh’s contention that the agency did not conduct an individualized analysis. Thus, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Singh failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by the Indian government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-73384

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.