Singh v. Garland ( 2022 )

20-612
Singh v. Garland
BIA
Douchy, IJ
A208 200 734
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED
AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS
COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT
FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX
OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A
PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 23rd day of June, two thousand twenty-two.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
9 EUNICE C. LEE,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 GURINDERJIT SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 20-612
17 NAC
18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Deepti Vithal, Richmond Hill, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting
26 Assistant Attorney General; John
27 S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Todd
28 J. Cochran, Trial Attorney, Office
1 of Immigration Litigation, United
2 States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, DC.
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
7 is DENIED.
8 Petitioner Gurinderjit Singh, a native and citizen of
9 India, seeks review of a January 21, 2020 decision of the BIA
10 affirming an April 19, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge
11 (“IJ”), which denied asylum, withholding of removal, and
12 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
13 re Gurinderjit Singh, No. A208 200 734 (B.I.A. Jan. 21, 2020),
14 aff’g No. A208 200 734 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C.Apr. 19, 2018). We
15 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
16 procedural history.
17 We review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the
18 BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.
19 2005). The applicable standards of review are well
20 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he
21 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any
22 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
23 contrary.”); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d
2
1 Cir. 2009) (reviewing factual findings for substantial
2 evidence and questions of law and application of law to facts
3 de novo); see also Gjerjaj v. Holder, 691 F.3d 288, 292 (2d
4 Cir. 2012) (“We review de novo questions of law, including
5 constitutional claims.”).
6 As an initial matter, we reject Singh’s argument that
7 the IJ deprived him of due process by admitting and
8 considering country conditions evidence submitted by the
9 Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) on the day of the
10 hearing. Singh has not shown that he was deprived of a full
11 and fair hearing or that he suffered prejudice because of the
12 timing of the evidentiary submission. See Debeatham v.
13 Holder, 602 F.3d 481, 486 (2d Cir. 2010)(holding that
14 petitioner had to show “that the outcome of his removal
15 proceedings would have been . . . different” but for the
16 alleged due process violation); Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey,
17 531 F.3d 141, 149 (2d Cir. 2008) (requiring petitioner to
18 show prejudice to state a due process claim); Li Hua Lin v.
19 U.S. Dep’t of Just., 453 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2006)(requiring
20 petitioner to show she was deprived of “a full and fair
21 opportunity to present [her] claims” (quotation marks
3
1 omitted)). Singh’s attorney was provided an opportunity to
2 review DHS’s evidence and respond in her closing argument,
3 and Singh has not shown what other arguments or evidence he
4 would have raised if afforded more time. See Debeatham, 602
5 F.3d at 486.
6 Moreover, we find no error in the agency’s determination
7 that the record established that Singh could safely relocate
8 within India. Where, as here, the agency concludes that an
9 asylum applicant suffered past persecution, the applicant is
10 entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future
11 persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1).* The burden then
12 shifts to DHS to rebut that presumption. Id.13 § 1208.13(b)(1)(ii). DHS may rebut the presumption if it
14 establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the
15 applicant can “avoid future persecution by relocating to
16 another part of the applicant’s country of nationality
17 . . . , and under all the circumstances, it would be
18 reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.” 8 C.F.R.
19 § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), (ii); see also Surinder Singh v. BIA,
* Citations to the regulations are to the version in effect
at the time of the agency’s decisions.
4
1 435 F.3d 216, 219 (2d Cir. 2006) (“Asylum in the United States
2 is not available to obviate re-location to sanctuary in one’s
3 own country.”). The IJ considers, among other relevant
4 factors, “whether the applicant would face other serious harm
5 in the place of suggested relocation; any ongoing civil strife
6 within the country; administrative, economic, or judicial
7 infrastructure; geographical limitations; and social and
8 cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health, and social
9 and familial ties.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3). When the
10 alleged persecutor is the government itself or an
11 organization or group that is government-sponsored, it is
12 presumed that internal relocation would not be reasonable.
13 Id. § 1208.13(b)(3)(ii).
14 As an initial matter, here the agency properly determined
15 that Singh was not persecuted by the government, so there is
16 no presumption that relocation would not be reasonable.
17 Jagdeep Singh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106, 115 (2d Cir. 2021)
18 (“An applicant’s allegation that he was persecuted by members
19 of a political party—even one that is in power nationally or,
20 as Singh alleges of the Akali Dal Badal, is aligned with a
21 party in power nationally—does not establish that the
5
1 applicant was persecuted by the government.”).
2 Second, the agency properly determined that DHS
3 demonstrated Singh could safely relocate within India. DHS
4 submitted a 2017 report by the Law Library of Congress, which
5 indicates that “[t]here appear to be no legal obstacles for
6 members of the Sikh faith to relocate to other areas of
7 India.” Certified Administrative Record at 204. According
8 to the report, “[o]nly hard-core militants appear to be of
9 interest to central Indian authorities” and “holding pro-
10 Khalistani views would not make someone a high-profile
11 militant.” Id. The Law Library report notes that, according
12 to a 2001 census, approximately 5 million of the 19 million
13 Sikhs in India live outside of Punjab, id. at 205, and
14 “members of the Sikh religion are able to practice their faith
15 without restriction in all states of India,” id. at 207. The
16 report further notes that only high-profile militants are at
17 risk of harm. Id. at 208–09.
18 Third, the agency properly determined that it would be
19 reasonable for Singh to relocate given his education and work
20 experience as a computer techinician. See 8 C.F.R.
21 § 1208.13(b)(3). Accordingly, this record “does not compel
6
1 the conclusion that internal relocation would not avert
2 future persecution.” Jagdeep Singh, 11 F.4th at 116. The
3 agency’s finding that Singh could safely relocate is
4 dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
5 relief. See Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119–20 (2d Cir.
6 2010) (holding that where record does not demonstrate chance
7 of persecution required for asylum, it “necessarily fails to
8 demonstrate” the likelihood of harm for withholding of
9 removal and CAT relief).
10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
11 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
12 stays VACATED.
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
15 Clerk of Court
7