RAJENDER KUMAR V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 18-70031 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 21 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAJENDER KUMAR, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-70031 Agency No. A201-108-023 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 19, 2019** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Rajender Kumar, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, although Kumar established past persecution, the government rebutted Kumar’s presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution with evidence that he could safely and reasonably relocate within India to avoid harm. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)-(3); Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2003) (substantial evidence supported finding that presumption of future persecution was rebutted). Thus, Kumar’s asylum claim fails. In this case, because Kumar failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Kumar’s CAT claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Indian government. See Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2013). We reject Kumar’s contentions that the IJ failed to properly consider 2 18-70031 portions of his testimony. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 18-70031
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.
