Amritpal Singh v. William Barr ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 7 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMRITPAL SINGH, No. 16-72662
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-421-899
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 3, 2019**
Portland, Oregon
Before: MURGUIA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ZIPPS,*** District Judge.
Amritpal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the order of the Immigration
Judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to Cancel Oral Argument and Submit
Case on Briefs was granted on April 22, 2019.
***
The Honorable Jennifer G. Zipps, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.
1. Asylum is unavailable if an applicant can safely relocate to another part of
his home country. INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 18 (2002). Substantial evidence
supports the IJ’s conclusion that Singh—a member of the Mann Party, a Sikh
separatist group—could reasonably relocate from Punjab to a different area within
India. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[W]e must
uphold the IJ’s determination if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and
probative evidence in the record.”). The IJ relied on numerous sources, including
Department of State country reports,1 to conclude that Sikhs could safely relocate
within India. Although Singh argued that he would be tracked by Punjab police if
he attempted to relocate, the assertion is unsupported by specific evidence in the
record.
2. Because Singh failed to establish that he was eligible for asylum, he
necessarily failed to satisfy the higher burden for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
3. Because substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Singh
1
“U.S. Department of State country reports are the most appropriate and
perhaps the best resource for information on political situations in foreign nations.”
Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
2 16-72662
could safely and reasonably relocate within India, he is not entitled to relief on his
CAT claim. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 435, 443 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 8
C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3)(ii)).
4. The BIA declined to address the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
Consequently, we need not address Singh’s argument that the IJ’s determination
was in error. See Regalado-Escobar v. Holder, 717 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 2013)
(“This court’s review of a BIA decision is limited to the decision itself, and does
not include the IJ’s decision, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopted
the IJ’s opinion.”).
PETITION DENIED.
3 16-72662