Kumar v. Garland ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          JUL 18 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    SANDEEP KUMAR,                                  No. 22-367
    Agency No.
    Petitioner,                        A208-273-322
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
    General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted July 14, 2023**
    San Francisco, California
    Before: S.R. THOMAS, BEA, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
    Petitioner Sandeep Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for
    review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) which
    dismissed Petitioner’s appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”)
    who denied Petitioner’s applications 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.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), 1 and ordered that
    Petitioner be removed from the United States to India. Reviewing the agency’s
    finding that Petitioner could safely relocate within his country of origin for
    substantial evidence, see Dawson v. Garland, 
    998 F.3d 876
    , 878, 884–85 (9th
    Cir. 2021), we deny the petition for review.
    1.    Petitioner argues that the BIA failed to analyze whether his past
    persecution was attributable to the national government of India, rather than a
    state government. Petitioner forfeited this argument when he failed to raise it
    before the BIA. In addition, the argument is meritless: The BIA’s decision on
    whether the past persecution was attributable to the national government is
    irrelevant because the regulations in effect at the time of the BIA’s decision
    required the same presumptions and burdens in the relocation analysis upon any
    showing of past persecution, whether government-sponsored or not. See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.13
    (b)(3)(ii) (2018) (“In cases in which the persecutor is a government or
    is government-sponsored, or the applicant has established persecution in the
    past, it shall be presumed that internal relocation would not be reasonable, unless
    the Service establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that, under all the
    circumstances, it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate.” (emphasis
    added)). Because the agency held that Petitioner suffered past persecution in
    1
    Petitioner abandoned his claim for CAT relief when he failed to raise that claim
    in his petition for review. Martinez-Serrano v. I.N.S., 
    94 F.3d 1256
    , 1259–60
    (9th Cir. 1996).
    2                                    22-367
    India, the agency’s failure to analyze whether the persecution was at the hands of
    the national government is irrelevant.
    2.    Petitioner’s arguments on the merits of the relocation analysis are
    meritless. The fact that petitioner was persecuted by the national government of
    India does not compel the conclusion that internal relocation is impossible or
    unreasonable. See Kaur v. Wilkinson, 
    986 F.3d 1216
    , 1230 (9th Cir. 2021). On
    the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that state governments in India have
    greater control over law enforcement than the national government. The evidence
    also demonstrates that Petitioner’s attackers have not attempted to contact him
    since 2017. The Government identified safe locations where Petitioner could live
    in India, and the agency’s decision that relocation within India would be
    reasonable was supported by substantial evidence.
    Because relocation within India would be reasonable, Petitioner is
    ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. See Melkonian v. Ashcroft,
    
    320 F.3d 1061
    , 1069 (9th Cir. 2003).
    PETITION DENIED.
    3                                  22-367
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-367

Filed Date: 7/18/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/18/2023