NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 18-1500 ______________ ONKAR SINGH MAHAL, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision and Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA-1 : A042-384-768) Immigration Judge: Walter A. Durling ______________ Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) February 13, 2019 BEFORE: HARDIMAN, SCIRICA, and COWEN, Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: July 1, 2019) ______________ OPINION* ______________ ____________________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. COWEN, Circuit Judge. Onkar Singh Mahal petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration (“BIA”). The BIA dismissed Mahal’s appeal from the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We will deny his petition for review. I. In 1990, Mahal, a native and citizen of India, was admitted at the age of 14 as a lawful permanent resident. In 2016, he was convicted of theft of government property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 and Social Security fraud under 42 U.S.C. § 1383a. Mahal was served with a notice to appear, and he conceded removability. The IJ found him removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) for having been convicted of the aggravated felonies of a theft offense with a term of imprisonment of at least one year under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) and a fraud offense with a loss of over $10,000 under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M). Mahal requested withholding of removal and CAT relief. The IJ denied his requests. The BIA dismissed Mahal’s administrative appeal. According to the BIA, “[Mahal], who is Sikh, challenges the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture” based on his credible testimony concerning his kidnapping and severe physical mistreatment by Hindus (which occurred in 1987 when he was 11 years old) as well as his brother’s similar mistreatment shortly 2 thereafter. (AR3 (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.18(a)).) Mahal also asserted that the country condition reports did not specifically state that the animosity between Sikhs and Hindus has been resolved, and he specifically referred to “a recent incident in which Sikh protestors clashed with police, resulting in two deaths and eighty injuries.” (Id.) Noting that a person seeking relief under the CAT must make a particularized showing of how he or she is threatened with torture and that reports of generalized brutality are not sufficient, the BIA determined that Mahal failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to India: We fully recognize that the respondent may have a subjective fear of return to India based upon the kidnapping and terrible injuries inflicted upon him when he was a child, particularly given that his brother was also severely harmed shortly thereafter. However, those incidents took place many years ago, during a period ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals