Singh v. Holder , 481 F. App'x 320 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                FILED
    AUG 06 2012
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    BACHITAR SINGH; et al.,                          No. 08-70594
    Petitioners,                       Agency Nos. A098-846-956
    A098-846-957
    v.                                                         A098-846-958
    A098-846-959
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.                        MEMORANDUM*
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted July 20, 2012**
    San Francisco, California
    Before: TASHIMA, CLIFTON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    Bachitar Singh (along with his wife and two children, whose applications are
    derivative to his) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application from asylum.
    We conclude that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. We
    therefore deny the petition. See Go v. Holder, 
    640 F.3d 1047
    , 1052 (9th Cir.
    2011).
    The Board found Singh’s account of past persecution credible but reasoned
    that the presumption of a reasonable and well-founded fear of future persecution
    was rebutted by evidence that Singh escaped persecution in the past by relocating
    to Mumbai and, later, Ludhiana. See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.13
    (b). Petitioners argue that
    Singh avoided persecution elsewhere only by hiding from police. He testified,
    however, that he was able to marry, travel, raise children, and supervise his farm
    while he lived in those cities. This testimony is substantial evidence in favor of the
    Board’s conclusion that relocation within India is a feasible alternative to asylum.
    Petitioners also point out that we held in Singh v. Moschorak, 
    53 F.3d 1031
    ,
    1034 (9th Cir. 1995), that “[i]t has never been thought that there are safe places
    within a nation when it is the nation's government that has engaged in the acts of
    punishing opinion that have driven the victim to leave the country.” The petitioner
    in that case, however, was persecuted in several different locations, and there was
    no evidence that he had ever managed to avoid persecution by relocating. 
    Id. at 1032-33
    . By contrast, the current lead Petitioner was persecuted only in his home
    2
    village by the local police and lived without persecution in both Mumbai and
    Ludhiana. The evidence does not compel a conclusion that the reach of Singh’s
    persecutors is nationwide, but even if it did, the record in this case contains
    substantial evidence that Petitioners can relocate to a place where Singh will not in
    fact suffer persecution.
    Finally, Petitioners argue that the Board only analyzed whether it was
    possible for Singh to relocate, not whether it was reasonable to expect him to do
    so. See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.13
    (b)(3); Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 
    367 F.3d 1206
    , 1214-15
    (9th Cir. 2004). As described above, however, the Board took into account the fact
    that Singh successfully relocated in the past. This evidence suggests that it is
    reasonable to expect Petitioners to relocate again in the future.
    PETITION DENIED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-70594

Citation Numbers: 481 F. App'x 320

Judges: Tashima, Clifton, Murguia

Filed Date: 8/6/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024