Bhupinder Singh Bal v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BHUPINDER SINGH BAL, No. 08-75066
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-045-685
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2012 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Bhupinder Singh Bal, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Eneh v.
Holder, 601 F.3d 943, 946 (9th Cir. 2010). We grant the petition for review, and
we remand.
Bal, a Sikh from the Punjab, fears being tortured if he returns to India
because he killed a cow, a sacred religious symbol for Hindus, and because of his
activities in support of a Sikh political party. The record indicates that Bal came to
the attention of the police only after he killed the cow, and he immediately fled,
never returning to his home or village. In analyzing Bal’s CAT claim, the BIA
mischaracterized the 2006 country report when it discounted evidence of torture as
occasional acts of rogue agents committed without government acquiescence. The
BIA also failed to take into account Bal’s evidence that he is subject to one or more
outstanding warrants and charges in India. Accordingly, we remand for the BIA to
assess Bal’s CAT claim properly in light of his undisputed testimony regarding the
authorities’ interest in him and the record evidence regarding the prevalence of
torture by the authorities. See id. at 947-48 (remanding where agency’s reasoning
appeared to be at odds with aspects of case); Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279,
1282-84 (9th Cir. 2001) (remanding for agency to consider probative evidence of
country conditions confirming widespread torture of Tamil males).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
2 08-75066