
    Bikramjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70653.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
    
    Filed Feb. 15, 2013.
    Pardeep S. Grewal, Esquire, Law Offices of Pardeep S. Grewal, Castro Valley, CA, for Petitioner.
    Paul Cygnarowicz, Trial, Yamileth G. Handuber, Trial, Oil, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bikramjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s 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, Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the government rebutted Singh’s presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution by establishing changed circumstances in India. See id. at 998-1001. The agency rationally construed evidence in the record and provided a sufficiently individualized analysis of Singh’s future fear. See id. at 1000. We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to consider all relevant evidence. See Lin v. Holder; 588 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir.2009) (“[AJlthough the BIA must consider a petitioner’s evidence of changed country conditions, it need not expressly refute on the record every single piece of evidence.”). Accordingly, Singh’s asylum claim fails.

Because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 1001 n. 5.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Singh failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured in India. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1288-89 (9th Cir.2008).

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