NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HARDEEP SINGH, No. 21-70289 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-993-518 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 7, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: LUCERO,*** IKUTA, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Memorandum joined by Judge IKUTA and Judge VANDYKE; Dissent by Judge LUCERO Hardeep Singh (Singh) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration * 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). *** The Honorable Carlos F. Lucero, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. Appeals’ (BIA) January 28, 2021, affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and request for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.1 “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we review both decisions.” Garcia-Martinez v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 2018); Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014) (“In so doing, we review … the reasons explicitly identified by the BIA, and then examine the reasoning articulated in the IJ’s oral decision in support of those reasons.”) (citation omitted). “Thus, we refer to the Board and IJ collectively as ‘the agency.’” Medina-Lara v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014). Under substantial evidence review, we treat the agency’s factual findings as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Rayamajhi v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 1241, 1243 (9th Cir. 2019). Accordingly, in order to reverse the agency’s finding, “we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992). Here, the agency concluded that Singh (a Sikh and Mann Party supporter) demonstrated past persecution by police officers in Punjab, creating a presumption of future persecution in support of his asylum application, which the government 1 The parties are familiar with the facts, so we repeat them here only as necessary. 2 bore the burden to rebut. Popova v. INS, 273 F.3d 1251, 1259 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i); Singh v. Ilchert, 69 F.3d 375, 378 (9th Cir. 1995)). The agency reasonably determined that the government sufficiently rebutted the presumption of future persecution with evidence that Singh could safely and reasonably relocate outside of Punjab (including a 2018 report from the Library of Congress titled “India: Feasibility of Relocation of Sikhs and Members of the Shiromani Akali Dal (Mann) Party,” which concludes that relocation is feasible as long as the individual is not …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals