Singh v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 3 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURWINDER SINGH No. 22-171
Petitioners, Agency No. A209-156-704
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted April 20, 2023
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, CALLAHAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Gurwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal of an
Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review the agency’s
factual findings for substantial evidence and review questions of law de novo.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020); see Plancarte Sauceda
v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022) (we must uphold the agency’s
determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. The BIA assumed without deciding that Singh had established past
persecution but found that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) had
rebutted this assumption by showing that Singh could safely and reasonably relocate
within India. DHS may rebut the presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution
by showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) the applicant no longer has
a well-founded fear of persecution in the country of their nationality or (2) that he
can safely and reasonably internally relocate. Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 659
(9th Cir. 2019). Although the IJ decided Singh’s case in 2018 before we decided
Singh v. Whitaker, the BIA applied that precedent in its 2022 decision and conducted
an adequate individualized assessment of Singh’s circumstances. The BIA
considered whether Singh would be targeted for his continued support of the Mann
Party outside of Punjab.
First, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Singh can safely
relocate in India. Singh argues that he cannot safely relocate because he is a member
of the Mann Party and faces threats by both the Bharatiya Janata Party (“BJP”) and
Akali Dal Badal Party (“Badal Party”). The record supports the conclusion that
2
Singh is a low-level member of the Mann Party, and the central authorities controlled
by the BJP target “high-profile militants.” Singh is also unlikely to suffer
persecution by Badal Party outside of Punjab since different political parties control
other states. Singh, 914 F.3d at 659 (“there must be an area of the country where
[the applicant] has no well-founded fear of persecution” for the applicant to safely
relocate internally).1
Second, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that it would be
reasonable for Singh to internally relocate. See Plancarte Sauceda, 23 F.4th at 831.
Singh argues that he only speaks Punjabi fluently and that “he has never lived or
worked outside of Punjab.” But no legal restrictions prevent Singh from relocating,
and he is a high school graduate with work experience and financial support from
his family. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3); Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1214
(9th Cir. 2004) (courts determine the reasonableness of internal relocation by
considering the applicant’s age, health, education, and economic status). This record
does not compel a different conclusion than the BIA reached.
Because the issue of internal relocation within India is dispositive, we decline
to reach whether the change in political power in Punjab constituted a change in
1
At argument, Singh argued for the first time that the BIA failed to distinguish
between persecution by the political parties and that done by party supporters. This
argument was not made in Singh’s opening brief, and so is deemed waived. Smith
v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
3
circumstances. INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (courts are not
required to decide issues unnecessary to their results).
2. Because “[a] failure to satisfy the lower standard of proof required to
establish eligibility for asylum therefore necessarily results in a failure to
demonstrate eligibility for withholding of deportation,” Singh’s withholding claim
fails. Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000).
3. Singh did not contest the IJ’s denial of his petition for CAT relief before
the BIA. Since we consider only the grounds relied upon by the BIA, this claim falls
outside the scope of our review. Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir.
2004).
PETITION DENIED.
4