FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 27 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAJINDER SINGH, No. 13-71376
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-534-545
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 17, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Rajinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of an
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The BIA identified
three specific instances in which Singh testified inconsistently: (1) how the police
knew that Singh and his relatives were Shromani Akali Dal Mann members; (2)
how often the police visited Singh’s home after his arrests; and (3) whether or not
police arrested his brother prior to 2006. The BIA also concluded that Singh’s two
witnesses failed to rehabilitate his inconsistent testimony. The testimony of one
witness was inconsistent with Singh’s testimony, and the other witness disavowed
his own prior written statement.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s
alternative determination that, even assuming Singh provided credible testimony
demonstrating past persecution, the Department of Homeland Security successfully
rebutted the presumption of future persecution with record evidence of Singh’s
ability to reasonably relocate. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B). This was
contained in government reports from three countries ascribing improved
conditions for Sikhs in India. See also Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 837 (9th
Cir. 2014) (stating that country conditions in India now allow for Sikhs to be safely
removed to India).
2
Humanitarian asylum, where there is little likelihood of future persecution,
is reserved for rare cases where a petitioner has suffered “atrocious forms of
persecution.” Kebede v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 808, 812 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation
omitted). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Singh’s past
persecution failed to qualify for humanitarian asylum. See Belayneh v. INS, 213
F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir. 2000).
Singh also contends that the BIA did not consider his evidence of police
torture when it denied CAT protection. The BIA considered Singh’s testimony of
police torture in making its adverse credibility determination and also found that
Singh could safely relocate within India in order to avoid future persecution from
local police. Thus, the BIA properly denied CAT protection. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(3).
Petition DENIED.
3