
    Sukhbir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 10-71058, 10-72769.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 23, 2012.
    Elias Z. Shamieh, Law Offices of Shamieh and Ternieden, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Kelly J. Walls, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sukhbir 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and of the BIA’s order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petitions for review.

Singh fears harm in India based on a family dispute related to an arranged marriage and subsequent divorce proceedings. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Singh failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured upon return to India. See Soriano v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir.2009). Accordingly, Singh’s CAT claim fails.

In addition, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s untimely motion to reopen because it considered the evidence and acted within its broad discretion in determining that Singh did not establish prima fade eligibility for CAT relief. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir.2006).

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