MEMORANDUM *

Prabh Kaur Sirmar petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her claims for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition. 1

■The BIA’s determination that there has been a fundamental change in India such that Sirmar no longet has a well-founded *389 fear of persecution is supported by substantial evidence. See Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). The IJ and BIA credited a 2008 State Department report, India Issue Paper on the Treatment of Sikhs, which found that conditions for Indian Sikhs had changed dramatically in recent years, that “persecution of Sikhs based on political or religious beliefs would be widely covered” by the media in India today and that “[t]here is no indication that Sikhs are singled out for police abuse.” The IJ applied this report on the situation in India to Sirmar’s individual circumstances, see Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 805 (9th Cir. 2004), finding that Sirmar’s claim that she was targeted because her brother was a supporter of a Sikh nationalist party “provides no basis in today’s India for finding that she will be persecuted.” Sirmar’s contrary evidence of country conditions predates the State Department report and speaks only to corruption and police brutality in India in general — not persecution specific to Sikhs or Sikh-dominated political parties. Absent a well-founded fear of persecution, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Sirmar is not eligible for asylum. 2 See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)© & (ii).

Because Sirmar’s asylum claim fails, so does her claim for withholding of removal, which requires a higher likelihood of future persecution. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1288 (9th Cir. 2008); Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888-89 (9th Cir. 2001).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Sirmar is ineligible for CAT protection. The single overnight detention and beatings Sirmar received at the hands of the police, although cruel and degrading, do not compel a finding that she experienced torture. See Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1200-01 (9th Cir. 2007). And the evidence of changed country conditions in India adequately refutes Sirmar’s claim that she will more likely than not be tortured in the future. See Latter-Singh v. Holder, 668 F.3d 1156, 1164 (9th Cir. 2012).

PETITION DENIED.