Singh v. Garland ( 2021 )

18-3754
Singh v. Garland
BIA
Segal, IJ
A206 097 724
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 TO 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 17th day of May, two thousand twenty-one.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 MICHAEL H. PARK,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 GURPREET SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 18-3754
17 NAC
18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Anas J. Ahmed, Esq., Jackson
24 Heights, NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting
27 Assistant Attorney General; Andrew
28 N. O’Malley, Senior Litigation
1 Counsel; Brendan Paul Hogan,
2 Attorney, Office of Immigration
3 Litigation, United States
4 Department of Justice, Washington,
5 DC.
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Petitioner Gurpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India,
11 seeks review of a November 29, 2018, decision of the BIA
12 affirming an October 30, 2017, decision of an Immigration
13 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and
14 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
15 Gurpreet Singh, No. A 206 097 724 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2018),
16 aff’g No. A 206 097 724 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 30, 2017).
17 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
18 and procedural history.
19 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for
20 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland
21 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the
22 agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual
23 determinations for substantial evidence. Y.C. v. Holder, 741
24 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013).
2
1 An asylum applicant like Singh who has suffered past
2 persecution is presumed to have a well-founded fear of future
3 persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). “The presumption
4 may be rebutted” where an IJ finds that “[t]he applicant could
5 avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of the
6 applicant’s country . . . and under all the circumstances, it
7 would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.” Id.8 § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B). 1 Where an applicant has established
9 past persecution, the Government can rebut the presumption
10 where a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the
11 applicant can safely relocate within his own country. Id.
12 § 1208.13(b)(1)(ii). The agency considers the
13 reasonableness of relocation, including “whether the
14 applicant would face other serious harm in the place of
15 suggested relocation; any ongoing civil strife within the
16 country; administrative, economic, or judicial
17 infrastructure; geographical limitations; and social and
18 cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health, and social
19 and familial ties.” Id. § 1208.13(b)(3).
20 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s internal
1 Citations are to the version of the regulations in effect at the
time of Singh’s proceedings before the agency.
3
1 relocation determination. As an initial matter, the IJ did
2 not err in relying on the contents of the 2016 State
3 Department Human Rights Report for India for the fact that
4 India does not prohibit internal movement: the agency may
5 take administrative notice of “[t]he contents of official
6 documents.” Id. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv). The State Department
7 report, other country conditions evidence in the record, and
8 Singh’s testimony support the agency’s relocation finding.
9 The IJ properly identified grounds supporting the
10 internal relocation determination. First, Singh’s fear was
11 based on the Congress Party’s activities with the cooperation
12 of police in Punjab, not mistreatment of Shiromani Akali Dal
13 Amritsar (“SADA”) party members at a national level. Second,
14 the evidence did not show contemporary widespread persecution
15 of SADA members outside of Punjab. Third, Singh was a low-
16 level party member who was active with SADA in India only
17 between 2012 and 2014. The country conditions evidence
18 reflected mistreatment of Sikhs in Punjab, but only isolated
19 incidents of persecution of Sikhs in other Indian States.
20 Singh argues that relocation would be unreasonable
21 because the police in Punjab failed to protect him in the
4
1 past and Congress Party members could locate him through a
2 national identification database. However, the record does
3 not support his allegation that the Congress Party could
4 locate him outside of Punjab through the database (or would
5 have an interest in doing so), particularly because Singh was
6 not a SADA leader and was active with the party in India only
7 between 2012 and 2014. Singh further argues that relocation
8 would be unreasonable because it would sever him from
9 cultural, religious, and familial ties. There is no
10 indication, however, that he would be unable to practice his
11 culture and religion or see his family if he relocated within
12 India. See Singh v. BIA, 435 F.3d 216, 219 (2d Cir. 2006)
13 (“Asylum in the United States is not available to obviate re-
14 location to sanctuary in one’s own country.”).
15 Because Singh’s withholding of removal and CAT claims
16 rested on the same factual basis as his claim for asylum, the
17 agency’s internal relocation finding is dispositive of all
18 relief. Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2010);
19 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B), (c)(3)(ii) (ability to
20 relocate internally similarly precludes withholding of
21 removal and CAT relief)
5
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
3 stays VACATED.
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
6 Clerk of Court
6