NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 21 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAJENDER KUMAR, No. 18-70031 Petitioner, 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 18-70031 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Rajender Kumar v. William Barr 21 February 2019 Agency Unpublished de7d95c2d1ec9db93e0dea37212b118854d27313
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals