
    Avtar SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73918.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 10, 2011.
    Robert Bradford Jobe, Esquire, Law Offices of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial, OIL, Edward Earl Wiggers, Esquire, 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: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Avtar 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 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, even if Singh established a well-founded fear of persecution, the government established by a preponderance of the evidence that Singh could reasonably relocate within India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(ii); Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1287 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 1001.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Singh failed to demonstrate that it was more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India. See Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1122-23 (9th Cir.2004).

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