
    Gurpreet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-72041
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 13, 2018 
    
    Filed February 22, 2018
    Margaret W. Wong, Esquire, Attorney, Margaret W. Wong & Associates, Cleveland, OH, for Petitioner
    Surell Brady, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gupreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. 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 Singh established past persecution, the government rebutted Singh’s presumed 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)(3); Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2003). We reject Singh’s contentions that the agency’s relocation analysis was insufficient and that the BIA failed to adequately address his argument that the IJ’s analysis was insufficient. Thus, his asylum claim fails.

In this case, because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 463 F.3d at 1190.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     