FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 19 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BALBIR SINGH, No. 13-71396
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-151-183
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 10, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: SILVERMAN, FISHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Balbir Singh, a citizen and native of India, petitions for review of the
agency’s determinations that he is ineligible for asylum and withholding from
removal under pre-REAL ID Act law and that he failed to establish his entitlement
to protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we grant the petition in part, deny the petition in part
and remand.
Where there are developments in case law after the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) issues its decision, a remand is appropriate so the agency may
consider the relevant precedent in the first instance. See Pannu v. Holder, 639 F.3d
1225, 1226 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (per
curiam)). Here, after the agency relied on Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041 (9th
Cir. 2004), in determining that Singh failed to demonstrate his treatment by police
was the result of imputed political opinion persecution, this court decided K. Singh
v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2014), which clarified that Dinu “applies only to
cases in which an asylum applicant . . . offers no direct or indirect evidence that he
is being subject to harsh treatment on account of a protected ground.” K. Singh,
764 F.3d at 1162. It also held that “[a]n ‘applicant’s association with, or
relationship to, people who are known to hold a particular political opinion’ may
serve as indirect evidence of an imputed political opinion.” Id. at 1159 (quoting
Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1032 (9th Cir. 2014)).
On review of the record considered as a whole, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992), we therefore believe it is appropriate to remand Singh’s
asylum and withholding claims back to the agency for consideration of whether
2
Singh’s statements in his written declaration, his association with Lalli and his
treatment by the police constitute direct or indirect evidence of political opinion
persecution “from which it is reasonable to believe that [Singh’s] harm was
motivated, at least in part,” by an imputed political opinion. Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d
732, 736 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc).
However, we deny Singh’s petition for CAT relief. Substantial evidence
supports the Board’s conclusion, based on the country reports, that the Indian
government no longer instigates, acquiesces in or is willfully blind to the torture of
Sikhs specifically. See J. Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 833 (9th Cir. 2014).
Although the BIA could have been clearer, the India Issue Paper on the Treatment
of Sikhs upon which the BIA relied discusses changed country conditions in the
context of Sikhs who “fear persecution on account of . . . having participated in
Sikh political organizations,” and contrasts today’s treatment of Sikhs with the
Indian government’s organized campaign against Sikh militancy in the 1990s. The
BIA acknowledged Singh’s testimony that police continued to search for him in
2008, but it was entitled to weigh that testimony against evidence in the country
reports. See J. Singh, 753 F.3d at 836-37.
The petition for review is GRANTED with respect to Singh’s asylum and
withholding claims and REMANDED to the agency for consideration of the
3
record as a whole in light of K. Singh v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2014).
The petition is DENIED with respect to Singh’s claim under the CAT.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
4