
    Chodha SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73848.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 15, 2010.
    
      Hardeep Singh Rai, Esquire, Tsz-Hai Huang, Esquire, Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    James A. Hurley, Esquire, OIL, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, Ann M. Welhaf, U.S. Department of Justice,' Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District 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

Chodha 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

The evidence does not compel the conclusion that Singh established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Accordingly, Singh’s asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that changed country conditions in India rebut Singh’s presumption of a clear probability of persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(l)(i)(A); Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285-86, 1288 (9th Cir.2008) (changed country conditions finding supported by individualized analysis based on country reports). Accordingly, Singh’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief based on changed country conditions. See Sowe, 538 F.3d at 1288-89.

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.
     