
    Nirmal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70434.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Dec. 15, 2010.
    Filed June 24, 2011.
    Patrick Ontiveros Cantor, Esquire, Taranjeet Kaur Buttar, I, Esquire, Buttar & Cantor, LLP, Tukwila, WA, Hilary Han, Dobrin & Han, PC, Seattle, WA, Bart Klein, Law Offices of Bart Klein, Seattle, WA, Mark Barrett Nerheim, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    John Blakeley, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, Esquire, Trial, Mona Maria Yousif, Trial, William Charles Peachey, Senior Litigation Counsel, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, 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: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, McKEOWN, FISHER, GOULD, PAEZ, RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Nirmal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions this court for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Factual findings underlying the agency’s denial of relief are reviewed for substantial evidence, Kozulin v. INS, 218 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir.2000), and they are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). As the facts of the case are known to the parties, we need not repeat them here.

I

With respect to withholding of removal, the agency denied relief because the government established that Singh “could avoid a future threat to his ... life or freedom by relocating to another part of the proposed country of removal and, under all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(l)(i)(B).

Nothing in the record compels a contrary conclusion. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). In his own testimony, Singh only expressed a fear of Punjab police, and noted several lengths of time in which he was able to reside in other portions of India without incident. The record further demonstrates that Punjabi Sikhs such as Singh are able to relocate to other parts of India. Moreover, the record does not compel the conclusion that rank-and-file members of Singh’s political party are subject to persecution.

II

The agency likewise denied relief under the CAT, because the government established that Singh “could relocate to a part of the country of removal where he ... is not likely to be tortured.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii). There is no presumption of future persecution in this context: rather, “the burden is on the applicant to show that it is more likely than not that [ ]he will be tortured, and one of the relevant considerations is the possibility of relocation.” Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir.2004).

Singh’s assertions with respect to this claim are substantially similar to those under withholding of removal. For all the reasons stated in the prior Part, Singh has “failed to establish that internal relocation within [India] was impossible.” Lemus-Galvan v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir.2008). The record does not compel reversal of the BIA’s denial of Singh’s request for CAT relief.

Accordingly, Singh’s petition for review with respect to withholding of removal and relief under the CAT is

DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . Singh's asylum claim is addressed in a separate opinion. See Singh v. Holder, No. 08-70434, 623 F.3d 633 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc).
     