
    Resham SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70406.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
    Hardeep Singh Rai, Indus Law Group LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jem C. Sponzo, Esquire, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Resham Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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 were credible, 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, 1286-87 (9th Cir.2008) (the presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution can be rebutted by showing that the applicant could avoid future persecution by relocation). Accordingly, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 1001 n. 5.

Substantial evidence 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 Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.2006).

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