Vinesh Singh v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VINESH KUMAR SINGH, No. 15-72503
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-674-693
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted September 11, 2017
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, ** District
Judge.
Vinesh Singh argues that the state-created danger doctrine prohibits the
federal government from deporting him to Fiji, where it would be harder for him to
obtain treatment for a medical condition he contracted while serving a sentence in
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
a California prison. See L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119, 121-22 (9th Cir. 1992).
We assume for the purposes of this appeal that a deportation could be enjoined
based on the state-created danger doctrine. See Morgan v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d
1084, 1093 (9th Cir. 2007). And we assume that Singh might be entitled to
factfinding in a district court if he alleged a colorable claim under that state-created
danger doctrine. See id. at 1090.
We deny the petition, however, because Singh lacks a colorable claim on the
merits.1 Because federal officials were not involved in creating the danger Singh
allegedly faces, the law does not require federal officials to protect him from it.
Compare, e.g., Wang v. Reno, 81 F.3d 808, 818 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION DENIED.
1
Singh’s request for judicial notice of court documents in another lawsuit is
granted. See Fed. R. Evid. 201.
2