FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 07 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMARJEET SINGH, No. 09-73511
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-102-374
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 November 8, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: NOONAN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and LYNN, District Judge.**
Amarjeet Singh (“Singh”), a native and citizen of India, petitions for review
of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Barbara M. G. Lynn, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition and remand.
The BIA found that Singh testified credibly and that he established past
persecution attributable to his affiliation with a Sikh political organization. The
BIA nevertheless concluded that Singh was not eligible for asylum because the
government had rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future
persecution by introducing evidence of changed country conditions in India. The
factual findings underlying the agency’s denial of relief are reviewed under the
substantial evidence standard. Lopez-Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 1012, 1015
(9th Cir. 2008).
The BIA relied largely on evidence indicating that the Sikh militant
movement is no longer active in the Punjab and that Sikhs now live in considerable
numbers outside of the region. The BIA also identified that Singh had suffered
localized problems with the police more than 10 years ago, that he no longer
practiced the visible elements of the Sikh religion, and that Singh had testified that
the harassment of his family was linked to the motive of taking money from his
family by the police. But none of the stated reasons demonstrates that Singh would
not be persecuted if he returned to India. In order to find changed conditions, the
BIA was required to identify specific improvements in India’s conditions occurring
-2-
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). Singh credibly
testified that, during both of his detentions, the police repeatedly accused him of
involvement with militants. Further, his testimony indicates that, even after
leaving India more than a decade ago, Singh is the subject of ongoing police
interest and that his family continues to endure harassment, motivated “at least in
part” on account of his imputed political opinion. See Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d 732,
736 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). As the BIA did not take these circumstances into
account or consider that “persecutory conduct may have more than one motive,”
Singh v. Ilchert, 63 F.3d 1501, 1509-10 (9th Cir. 1995), we grant the petition for
review and remand Singh’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims for
further proceedings consistent with this disposition, see INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S.
12, 16 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED and REMANDED.
-3-