Singh v. Garland ( 2022 )

20-771
Singh v. Garland
BIA
Schoppert, IJ
A206 508 540
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
New York, on the 15th day of March, two thousand twenty-two.
PRESENT:
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
ROBERT D. SACK,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
SUKHWINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v. 20-771
NAC
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Michael W. Pottetti, Port
Jefferson, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting
Assistant Attorney General;
Shelley R. Goad, Assistant
Director; Julia J. Tyler, Trial
Attorney, Office of Immigration
Litigation, United States
Department of Justice, Washington,
DC.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Sukhwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks
review of a February 5, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming
a May 7, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying
asylum and withholding of removal. In re Sukhwinder Singh,
No. A206 508 540 (B.I.A. Feb. 5, 2020), aff’g No. A206 508
540 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 7, 2018). We assume the
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
history.
We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions.
Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d
Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v.
Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). The agency
reasonably concluded that Singh, who was presumed to have a
well-founded fear and likelihood of political persecution by
local Congress Party members, could safely relocate within
2
India to avoid future harm.
An applicant who has suffered past persecution is
presumed to have a well-founded fear and likelihood of future
persecution on the same basis as the past harm. 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1208.13(b)(1), 1208.16(b)(1). The Government may rebut
this presumption if it establishes “by a preponderance of the
evidence” that the applicant can “avoid future persecution by
relocating to another part of the applicant’s country of
nationality . . . , and under all the circumstances, it would
be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.” 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), (ii), 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B), (ii); see
Surinder Singh v. BIA, 435 F.3d 216, 219 (2d Cir. 2006).
The IJ reasonably concluded that Singh could safely
relocate to another part of India based on evidence that
citizens may move freely and live throughout India, the
Congress Party controls the government of only a small
minority of states, law enforcement is largely the
responsibility of the individual states, people of his
religion live without trouble throughout the country, and he
is young, speaks both Punjabi and Hindi, and successfully
relocated to the United States. Contrary to Singh’s
contention, the agency’s determination that there were many
3
areas outside of Congress Party control and that he could
safely relocate to one of those areas was a sufficiently
specific finding as to area of relocation. See 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B) (requiring Government to show
relocation to “another part” of the country is reasonable),
(3), 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B), (3) (same); see also Matter of M-
Z-M-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 28, 33–34 & n.5 (B.I.A. 2012)
(requiring government to show area for relocation, but that
burden can be met by showing that conditions outside of the
home region “were not such that the applicant would have a
well-founded fear”); Surinder Singh, 435 F.3d at 219(upholding denial of withholding where record demonstrated
that petitioner could relocate safely elsewhere in India).
Accordingly, the agency did not err in concluding that
the Government rebutted the presumption that Singh has a well-
founded fear and likelihood of persecution. See 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), (ii), 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B), (ii);
Surinder Singh, 435 F.3d at 218–19.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
Clerk of Court
4