Harjinder Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 587 F. App'x 384 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                OCT 17 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    HARJINDER SINGH,                                  No. 11-70612
    Petitioner,                         Agency No. A089-697-548
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Argued and Submitted October 6, 2014
    San Francisco, California
    Before: WARDLAW, W. FLETCHER, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    Harjinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s
    (IJ) denial of his applications for cancellation of removal, withholding of removal,
    and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
    8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition and remand to the BIA.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    Because the BIA’s analysis suggests that it conducted an independent review
    of the record, we review the BIA’s decision. Ahmed v. Keisler, 
    504 F.3d 1183
    ,
    1190 (9th Cir. 2007). Despite the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, the BIA assumed
    credibility for the purpose of its decision. We therefore assume that Singh’s
    factual contentions are true. Navas v. INS, 
    217 F.3d 646
    , 657 (9th Cir. 2000).
    Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s finding that Singh failed to
    establish a nexus between his past mistreatment and his political opinion. Singh
    testified that he was arrested, beaten, and threatened because he filed a complaint
    against the police alleging that the police had a hand in his father’s death. During
    his arrest, Singh was questioned about politics and ridiculed for his political
    affiliation with the Shiromani Akali Dal party. Police officers threatened to kill
    Singh if he did not retract his complaint. Singh’s testimony establishes a nexus
    between his mistreatment and his real or imputed political opinion. See Grava v.
    INS, 
    205 F.3d 1177
    , 1181 (9th Cir. 2000); 
    Navas, 217 F.3d at 658
    –59.
    Additionally, substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s finding that
    Singh failed to establish a nexus between his past mistreatment and a protected
    social group. Singh testified that his father was an active member of the Shiromani
    Akali Dal party and that the police wanted to stop his father’s activities. Singh was
    arrested and questioned regarding his father’s whereabouts; Singh was threatened
    2
    and beaten during his arrest. Singh was only released when his father was arrested.
    Police continued to visit Singh’s home to threaten his father. This testimony
    establishes a nexus between Singh’s mistreatment and a particular social group:
    Singh’s family. See Jie Lin v. Ashcroft, 
    377 F.3d 1014
    , 1028–29 (9th Cir. 2004).
    Therefore, we grant Singh’s petition for review and remand for the BIA to
    consider issues other than nexus to an enumerated ground in the first instance. INS
    v. Orlando Ventura, 
    537 U.S. 12
    (2002).
    Petition GRANTED and REMANDED.
    3