Singh v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 20-60095 Document: 00515995879 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 26, 2021
No. 20-60095 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Dalwinder Singh,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A201 735 552
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Dalwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions us to review
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ approval of his order of removal. He
argues that he has proven the elements of his asylum claim for past
persecution and fear of future persecution. He further asserts the he has
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-60095 Document: 00515995879 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2021
No. 20-60095
shown he will be tortured in the future. The Board rejected Singh’s appeal
of his past persecution claim on the grounds of the harm he described not
being extreme enough. The Board also rejected Singh’s fear of future
persecution claim because Singh did not show relocation within his home
country would be unreasonable. We review decisions of the Board with
deference and so overturn their conclusions only when the evidence compels
us. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996).
Persecution for the purposes of a past persecution asylum claim must
be extreme conduct. Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006); see
also Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012). Our
precedent holds that harm analogous to what Singh described experiencing
does not rise to the level of persecution. See, e.g., Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73
F.3d 579, 584 (5th Cir. 1996); Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187-88 (5th
Cir. 2004). Therefore, the Board’s decision is in line with the law of this
circuit.
Asylum can also be based on a reasonable fear of future persecution.
Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444-45 (5th Cir. 2001). That fear
must be subjectively reasonable, which is not at issue here because Singh is
credible. However, that fear must also be objectively reasonable and the law
states that this element is not fulfilled when internal relocation is reasonable.
8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(ii). Reviewing the evidence does not compel us to
find that relocation is unreasonable in this case.
Finally, we are not compelled to find that Singh will be tortured in the
future and that the Indian Government will acquiesce to that torture. An
alien seeking CAT protection must demonstrate that it is more likely than
not that he will be tortured in his home country “at the instigation of or with
the consent or acquiesce of a public official or other person acting in an
official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). Acquiescence
2
Case: 20-60095 Document: 00515995879 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/26/2021
No. 20-60095
“requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture,
have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his or her legal
responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.18(a)(7). Singh argues that his local police did not protect him in the
past, but he cannot show that these police officers or any government official
would acquiesce to his torture. See Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th
Cir. 2017) (an alien’s CAT claim could not succeed because it “rests wholly
upon surmise and speculation” (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)).
DENIED.
3