Tirath Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch , 609 F. App'x 938 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 17 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TIRATH SINGH, No. 12-71387
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-544-796
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 8, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and FRIEDMAN,*** District
Judge.
*
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).
***
The Honorable Paul L. Friedman, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.
Page 2 of 3
1. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denied Tirath Singh’s
claims for asylum and withholding of removal because it concluded that Singh’s
mistreatment by the police was not motivated by imputed political opinion but was
instead part of a legitimate investigation. See Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041,
1044 (9th Cir. 2004). The BIA relied on Singh’s testimony that his cousin and
friends were involved in Babbar Khalsa, an underground militant organization, and
that the police questioned, detained, harassed, and beat Singh because they
believed he had information on the militants’ activities. Even assuming that the
BIA’s determination of no past persecution is contrary to the record, substantial
evidence supports its alternative basis for denying asylum and withholding. The
government submitted sufficient documentary evidence to rebut the presumption
that Singh has an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. That evidence
supports the BIA’s finding that the treatment of Sikhs in Punjab has improved over
the last two decades. The BIA specifically noted that former militants have
returned to the region and been able to remain there peacefully. See Singh v.
Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 835 (9th Cir. 2014). Singh’s testimony that the police
continue to ask his sisters about his whereabouts does not compel the conclusion
that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution.
Page 3 of 3
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Singh’s claim for
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The evidence does not
compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Singh will be tortured if
he returns to India. The BIA was entitled to give little weight to the hearsay
declarations bolstering Singh’s testimony that the police still inquire about him.
See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1021 (9th Cir. 2006). The BIA emphasized
that Sikhs now hold political office and are well-represented across various
professions. See Singh, 753 F.3d at 830–31. Substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s determination that the change in Sikhs’ status outweighs Singh’s testimony
as to his past mistreatment and the declarations he submitted on the likelihood of
future torture.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.