KUMAR v. BARR (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

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 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 portions of his testimony.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.