Pal Singh v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 423 F. App'x 681 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAL SINGH, No. 08-71059
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-645-568
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Pal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 931 (9th Cir. 2010).
We grant the petition for review and we remand.
Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s relocation finding
because it is unclear if the agency placed the burden on the government to show
relocation was reasonable, see id. at 935, and because the agency failed to analyze
whether the proposed relocation within India was reasonable as guided by the
considerations listed in 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(3) and 1208.16(b)(3), see id. at
936-37 (9th Cir. 2010) (remanding because “[t]he BIA failed to discuss the
reasonableness factors set forth in [the regulations] or discuss how the government
met its burden of showing that relocation was reasonable”). Accordingly, we
remand Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, for further proceedings
consistent with this disposition.
With respect to Singh’s CAT claim, the IJ denied it on the basis of his
adverse credibility determination. The BIA, without any analysis, agreed with the
IJ. Given that the BIA otherwise chose to not review the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination, it is not clear whether the BIA denied Singh’s CAT claim on the
2 08-71059
merits or on credibility grounds. Accordingly, we also grant Singh’s petition for
review with respect to his CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
3 08-71059