
    Balwant SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73423.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 7, 2013.
    
    Filed Nov. 14, 2013.
    Jaspreet Singh, Esquire, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
    Paul Cygnarowicz, Trial, OIL, Ada Elsie Bosque, Trial, DOJ-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: M. SMITH and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and PRO, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Philip M. Pro, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Balwant Singh (“Singh”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). Singh contends the BIA and IJ erred in denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We review the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions for substantial evidence. Kumar v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by multiple, specific references to the record where Singh’s testimony contradicted other record evidence or was evasive and nonresponsive. For example, Singh claimed to have been beaten by the police and released after his father and neighbors paid a bribe. However, the affidavits from those who helped secure Singh’s release make no mention of either Singh’s injuries or the bribe.

The IJ reasonably denied Singh’s asylum application after finding Singh failed to submit sufficient evidence to show past persecution on a protected ground or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ also reasonably found that Singh’s arrest was part of a legitimate police investigation, not on political grounds. Additionally, the record evidence was too speculative and generalized to indicate an individualized risk of future persecution. Because Singh did not establish eligibility for asylum, he cannot meet the higher burden for withholding of removal. Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.2004).

Finally, there is insufficient evidence to show that Singh more likely than not would be tortured if he is removed. Substantial evidence therefore supports the IJ’s denial of relief under CAT.

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