
    Satnam SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70343.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
    
    Filed Feb. 15, 2013.
    Daniela Ramona Razawi, Esquire, Law Office of Daniela R. Razawi, Lincoln, CA, for Petitioner.
    Christina Bechak Parascandola, Nancy Ellen Friedman, 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: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Satnam Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing the appeal of an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 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, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Singh’s and his family’s experiences did not rise to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000) (unfulfilled threats standing alone constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal because Singh failed to establish that he could not reasonably relocate within India. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Singh’s CAT claim, because he failed to show a likelihood of torture at the instigation of, or with the acquiescence of the Indian government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

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