
    Jasbir Singh MANN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72883.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 22, 2010.
    Jasbir Singh Mann, Simi Valley, CA, pro se.
    
      Katharine Clark, Esquire, OIL, Barry J. Pettinato, 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: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jasbir Singh Mann, native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition for review.

Even if Mann’s asylum application was timely filed, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Mann can reasonably relocate to Bombay. See Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir.2003).

Similarly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Mann failed to establish his eligibility for CAT relief because he can safely relocate. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 435, 443 (9th Cir.2003).

The government’s motion to strike the evidence submitted by Mann that is not already contained in the administrative record is granted. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).

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