FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 7 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JATINDER SINGH HEHAR, No. 18-73204
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-564-977
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 3, 2020**
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN, N.R. SMITH, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Singh Hehar petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). The BIA adopted the IJ’s finding that Singh Hehar
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
established past persecution, but that the government had rebutted the presumption
of future persecution. We grant the petition for review.
1. Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s conclusion that the
government rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution
based on a fundamental change of circumstances. “[W]e have long held that the
determination of whether or not a particular applicant’s fear is rebutted by general
country conditions information requires an individualized analysis that focuses on
the specific harm suffered and the relationship to it of the particular information
contained in the relevant country reports.” Chand v. INS, 222 F.3d 1066, 1079 (9th
Cir. 2000). Here, the government presented the 2017 election results in Punjab.
The election results merely showed the Indian National Congress Party won a
majority in the Punjab legislature, diminishing the power of the Bharatiya Janata
Party and Shiromani Akali Badal Party, who were in the majority when Singh
Hehar was persecuted. The government did not present any evidence of “how
changed conditions [(those election results)] will affect [Singh Hehar’s] situation,”
as a politically active member of the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar Party. See id.
(citation omitted). Accordingly, the BIA failed to make the individualized analysis
that was required. See id.
2
2. Similarly, substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s conclusion that
Singh Hehar could safely relocate to another area of India. As with a change in
circumstances, the BIA must provide an individualized analysis of whether
relocation is reasonable. See Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 659 (9th Cir. 2019).
The government proposed that Singh Hehar could relocate “outside” of Punjab, a
“generally defined area” that “require[s] a more comprehensive showing of proof
that the entirety of the area is safe for relocation, as compared to . . . a specific
city.” See id. at 660. However, the government only submitted two out-of-date
country reports to rebut the presumption that “internal relocation would not be
reasonable.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(ii). The BIA failed to “conduct a
sufficiently individualized analysis of [Singh Hehar’s] ability to relocate.” Singh,
914 F.3d at 661.
3. Because the BIA failed to properly assess Singh Hehar’s presumption of a
well-founded fear of future persecution, we remand the issue of whether Singh
Hehar has established eligibility for CAT relief.
4. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of humanitarian asylum
based on its conclusion that the persecution suffered by Singh Hehar was not
“extremely severe” in nature. Id. at 662. However, because the BIA improperly
assessed Singh Hehar’s fear of future persecution, we remand for the BIA to
3
reconsider whether Singh Hehar established “a reasonable possibility that he . . .
may suffer other serious harm upon removal to [India].” Id. (quoting 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED and REMANDED.
4