FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARPAL SINGH; GURDEV KAUR; No. 06-71703
RAJWANT SINGH; AMANPRET
KAUR, Agency Nos. A098-151-097
A098-151-098
Petitioners, A098-151-099
A098-152-250
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted July 16, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and TODD, Senior District Judge.**
Harpal Singh and his family, natives and citizens of India, have petitioned
for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying
their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable James Dale Todd, Senior United States District Judge
for the Western District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1252. We deny the petition for review.
An alien may be granted asylum “if the Secretary of Homeland Security or
the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of
[8 U.S.C.] section 1101(a)(42)(A).” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). A refugee is a
person who is unwilling to return to his country because “of persecution or a
well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C §
1101(a)(42)(A).
If a petitioner for asylum or withholding of removal establishes past
persecution on a protected ground, as in the present case, there is a presumption
that the petitioner’s life or freedom would be threatened upon his return to his
home country. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i). This presumption can be rebutted
if the government establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that there has
been a fundamental change in circumstances in the home country such that the
petitioner’s life or freedom would not be threatened or that the petitioner could
safely relocate to another part of the country. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i)-(ii).
The panel reviews the BIA’s factual determinations and its decision denying an
2
asylum application under the substantial evidence standard. INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
Singh contends that the BIA erred in finding that the presumption of future
persecution against him was rebutted by changed country conditions. In order to
find changed conditions, the BIA was required to identify specific improvements
in India’s conditions occurring after Singh’s persecution and link those
improvements to Singh and his ability to return. See Rios v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d
895, 901 (9th Cir. 2002). The BIA identified the following improvements: (1)
people who were not high profile military suspects, such as Singh, were not at risk
in Punjab; (2) from 1996 to 2004 the Akali Dal had successfully participated in
elections, a Sikh had been sworn in as Prime Minister, and the President had
attended a pro-Khalistan rally; and (3) human rights abuses in the Punjab discussed
in the most recent State Department country reports described events that had
occurred in the past. Given these significant changes, substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s finding that Singh did not have a reasonable fear of future
persecution if he returned to India.
The application for withholding of removal also was properly denied, as the
change in country circumstance was such that Singh’s life or freedom would not be
threatened on account of any protected ground. As for the CAT claim, because of
3
the changed conditions in India, the record does not compel the conclusion that it is
more likely than not that Singh would be tortured if he is removed to India. See
Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1217-18 (9th Cir. 2005).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Harpal Singh and his
family are not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal to India, or protection
under the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture.
PETITION DENIED.
4