Amritpal Singh v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMRITPAL SINGH, AKA Harwinder No. 15-71651
Singh,
Agency No. A205-144-974
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 12, 2019
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,** District
Judge.
Amritpal Singh, a.k.a. Harwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India and a
member of the political party Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar (Mann Party),
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252, and we deny the petition.
1. The BIA conducted a sufficiently “reasoned analysis with respect to
[Singh’s] individualized situation” and considered the risk to him posed by the
Punjabi police, local authorities, and the national government. See Singh v.
Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 661 (9th Cir. 2019). Substantial evidence supports the
BIA's conclusion that Singh can safely and reasonably relocate in India. The BIA
noted that country conditions reports indicated that Sikhs can move freely within
India, that the tenant registration system is not implemented everywhere in India,
and that unless a Mann Party member is of interest to the central authorities and
has a criminal history, relocation is feasible. Although the documentary evidence
shows that the Punjabi police have recently harmed Mann Party members, there is
substantial support for the proposition that Mann Party members who leave Punjab
will be safe from both local authorities and the Punjabi police, provided they are
not "high-profile militants"—which Singh does not claim to be.
2. An applicant seeking withholding of removal bears a higher burden of proof
than he does for asylum. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.
2006). Because Singh does not meet his lower burden of establishing his
2
eligibility for asylum, he necessarily does not meet his burden to prove that he is
eligible for withholding of removal.
3. We also deny the petition for review on Singh’s claim of humanitarian
asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 1208(b)(1)(iii). Humanitarian asylum requires
“extremely severe persecution.” Singh, 914 F.3d at 662. Singh’s five beatings and
arrest, although disturbing, do not rise to the level of severity necessary to warrant
humanitarian asylum. See, e.g., id. (denying review of humanitarian asylum claim
where applicant was beaten three times by Punjabi police for being a Mann Party
member); Lal v. INS, 255 F.3d 998, 1009–10 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding unsupported
the BIA’s denial of humanitarian asylum where applicant was detained, beaten and
tortured with knives and cigarettes, deprived of food and water, forced to watch
sexual assault of wife, and house and place of worship were burned, among other
harms).
4. Finally, we deny the petition for review on Singh’s CAT claim because
substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Singh did not prove it
was "more likely than not" that he would be tortured if he returned home. Afriyie
v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 937 (9th Cir. 2010). Despite the documentary evidence
that human rights concerns exist in India, Singh has not established that he
specifically will be tortured. The evidence points to the contrary because he is not
a high-profile Mann Party member. His past persecution does not compel a
3
contrary conclusion. See Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1201 (9th Cir. 2007)
(finding substantial evidence supported denial of CAT relief where petitioner had
been beaten four times by the police but otherwise did not demonstrate he would
be tortured upon return to Bangladesh, because it was not clear that past
persecution rose to the level of torture).
PETITION DENIED.
4