
    Tejpal SINGH, aka Navtej Singh Mattu, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-73384.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
    
    Filed Dec. 14, 2015.
    Jaspreet Singh, Esq., Law Office of Jas-preet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
    Charles S. Greene, Oil, 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: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   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.
     