Amrick Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 11 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMRICK SINGH, No. 12-73623
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-697-257
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2014**
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Amrick Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.
2009). We grant the petition for review and we remand.
Singh stated his father and cousin were Shiromani Akali Dal party members
and that he supported Shiromani Akali Dal. Singh was arrested, detained, and
tortured two times by Punjab police because of his and his family’s support for
Shiromani Akali Dal, and because police wrongly suspected Singh and his family
members had ties with militants. Singh also stated Goa police inquired about him
at work after Singh’s cousin visited him in Goa. Following Singh’s departure from
India, Calcutta and Punjab police arrested and beat Singh’s uncle in Calcutta for
helping Singh exit the country, and inquired about Singh’s whereabouts.
Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s finding that Singh failed
to demonstrate past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of a
protected ground. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[i]f
Singh was actually subjected to beatings and torture at the hands of the Indian
police for his believed association with militant Sikh separatists, he is
presumptively eligible for asylum”); see also Singh v. Ilchert, 63 F.3d 1501, 1509
(9th Cir. 1995) (“If there is no evidence of a legitimate prosecutorial purpose for a
government’s harassment of a person . . . there arises a presumption that the motive
2 12-73623
for harassment is political”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted),
superseded by statute on other grounds as stated by Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555
F.3d 734, 739-40 (9th Cir. 2009).
Moreover, in denying Singh’s CAT claim, the agency failed to consider all
the evidence in the record, including Singh’s past mistreatment and his country
conditions evidence. See Edu v. Holder, 624 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th Cir. 2010) (“the
BIA must consider all evidence in deciding whether it is more likely than not that
the alien would face future torture, but the existence of past torture is ordinarily the
principal factor on which we rely”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and we remand this case to the
agency for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v.
Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
3 12-73623