NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 15 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SATNAM SINGH, No. 17-72405 Petitioner, Agency No. A087-995-270 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 12, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW, COOK,*** and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Satnam Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final removal order dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying him asylum, withholding of removal, * 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 Deborah L. Cook, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We review questions of law de novo and the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 2013). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition in substantial part, and remand to the BIA for further consideration consistent with this disposition. 1. For the first time in his Reply Brief, Singh argues that the BIA lacked jurisdiction over his case in light of Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). However, Pereira considered only whether the issuance of a defective notice to appear stops the accrual of continuous residency for petitioners seeking cancellation of removal. Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160–61 (9th Cir. 2019). Singh’s defective notice to appear therefore did not strip the BIA of jurisdiction over this case. Id. 2. In denying Singh’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal, the BIA held that the government had rebutted any presumption of future persecution because circumstances had fundamentally changed in Punjab and because Singh could avoid such persecution by relocating within India. See 8 U.S.C. § 1208.16(b)(1). On appeal, the government mentions changed circumstances only in a footnote, with no argument in support of the BIA’s findings. The government therefore forfeits any argument that the BIA’s changed 2 17-72405 circumstances finding was supported by substantial evidence. United States v. Strong, 489 F.3d 1055, 1060 n.4 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The summary mention of an issue in a footnote, without reasoning in support of the [party’s] argument, is insufficient to raise the issue on appeal.” (citation omitted). As for internal relocation, the BIA failed to conduct a “reasoned analysis with respect to a petitioner’s individualized situation.” Narinder Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 661 (9th Cir. 2019). The BIA spent, at most, two paragraphs considering whether Singh could relocate within India. The BIA did not meaningfully apply any of the factors ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals