Miguel Raya-Rivas v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Miguel Raya-Rivas v. Loretta E. Lynch

624 F. App'x 557

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 15, 2015

Docket12-73964

StatusUnpublished

This text of 624 F. App'x 557 (Miguel Raya-Rivas v. Loretta E. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miguel Raya-Rivas v. Loretta E. Lynch, 624 F. App'x 557 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

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 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)(l)(i)(B), 1208.16(b)(l)(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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

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 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)(l)(i)(B), 1208.16(b)(l)(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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

624 F. App'x 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miguel-raya-rivas-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack