FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 28 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BHUPINDER PAL SINGH; HARJINDER No. 13-71168
KAUR,
Agency Nos. A088-491-069
Petitioners, A088-491-070
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Bhupinder Pal Singh and Harjinder Kaur, natives and citizens of India,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th
Cir. 2011). We grant the petition for review and remand.
Singh stated police in India arrested and mistreated him, falsely accused him
of having links with militants, told him to stop supporting the Lok Bhalai party,
and told him to stop speaking against the Shiromani Akali Dal Badal party. The
agency concluded petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof for asylum and
withholding of removal because Singh’s testimony was not clear as to the reason
why police arrested him, and the background did not support Singh’s claim. The
record does not support the agency’s conclusion. See id. at 1019-20 (agency’s
conclusion that officials mistreated petitioner because of legitimate prosecution
was not supported by substantial evidence, and record compelled finding that
petitioner satisfied the nexus requirement); Chand v. INS, 222 F.3d 1066, 1077
(9th Cir. 2000) (“we have never assumed that all potentially relevant incidents of
persecution in a country are collected in the State Department’s documentation”).
Further, it is not clear if the agency considered all relevant evidence in
analyzing Singh’s CAT claim, including his past mistreatment by police. See Edu
v. Holder, 624 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th Cir. 2010).
Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand this case to the agency for
2 13-71168
further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S.
12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
3 13-71168