Jagdeep Singh petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s decision to deny his application for asylum and withholding of removal under both the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh argues that the BIA erred in determining that he had not established past persecution based on his religion and political opinions, a well founded fear of future persecution, or that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if he were returned to India.

This court will uphold the factual findings that an alien is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal if those findings are supported by substantial evidence. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78-79 (5th Cir. 1994). The substantial evidence standard requires that the decision be based on the evidence presented and that the decision be substantially reasonable. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). The BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion as to either Singh’s INA claims or his CAT claim. See id. Accordingly, Singh’s petition for review is DENIED.