NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 5 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TAJINDER SINGH, No. 16-71917
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-585-719
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 13, 2018
San Francisco, California
Before: FISHER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BUCKLO,** District Judge.
Tajinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review the BIA’s factual findings for
substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d
1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2011). For the following reasons, we grant in part and
deny in part the petition for review.
We grant Singh’s petition with respect to his asylum and withholding of
removal claims because the BIA failed to conduct a sufficiently individualized
analysis of Singh’s ability to safely and reasonably relocate within India. See 8
C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(3), 1208.16(b)(3). The BIA’s relocation analysis focused on
Singh’s fear that, if he returned to India, the Punjabi police might locate him and
subject him to further persecution because of his past political activities with the
Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar Party (“Mann Party”) in Punjab. But in
concentrating its analysis on Singh’s past activities, the BIA overlooked another
aspect of Singh’s claim—specifically, that his intended future political activities
with the Mann Party might expose him to harm in areas outside Punjab. Because
the BIA failed to address Singh’s fear that Congress Party members might
persecute him for his continued political activism in other parts of India, its
relocation analysis was inadequate. See N. Singh v. Whitaker, No. 16-70823, 2019
WL 310400, at *5 & n.2 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2019) (remanding asylum and
withholding claims to the BIA to conduct an individualized analysis of petitioner’s
relocation prospects “in light of the persons and entities that caused [his] past
2 16-71917
persecution” and his “stated intent” to continue his political activism wherever he
relocates); Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1214-15 (9th Cir. 2004)
(remanding the issue of reasonableness of relocation to the BIA because the
agency failed to take into account several factors outlined in 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(3)). Accordingly, we remand Singh’s asylum and withholding claims
to be reevaluated in light of our decision in N. Singh, 2019 WL 310400.1
With respect to Singh’s claim for CAT relief, however, we deny the petition
for review. To qualify for CAT protection, Singh had to demonstrate that it was
more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of
government officials if he returned to India. Kamalthas v. I.N.S., 251 F.3d 1279,
1282 (9th Cir. 2001); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). The BIA
concluded that Singh did not carry his burden, and the record before us does not
compel a contrary conclusion. See Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1200-01 (9th
Cir. 2007) (evidence of petitioner being taken into custody and beaten on four
separate occasions compelled conclusion that it was more likely than not that
petitioner would be persecuted if removed to Bangladesh, but it did not compel a
conclusion that he would be tortured). As the BIA’s denial of CAT relief is
supported by substantial evidence, Singh’s petition for review on that basis is
1
We do not reach the other arguments Singh raises with respect to these
claims.
3 16-71917
denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED AND REMANDED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
4 16-71917