NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JARNAIL SINGH, No. 18-70442 Petitioner, Agency No. A098-516-498 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 24, 2020** Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Jarnail Singh, a native and citizen of India, timely petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not repeat them here. * 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). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. We review the BIA’s decision, “except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Cordon–Garcia v. INS, 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir. 2000)). “We review petitions for review of the BIA’s determination that a petitioner does not qualify for asylum or withholding of removal under the highly deferential ‘substantial evidence’ standard.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)). Although Singh was entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution in India, substantial evidence supports the finding that Singh no longer has a well-founded fear of future persecution because country conditions in India have fundamentally changed. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A) (asylum), 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(A) (withholding of removal). The BIA reviewed country conditions evidence submitted by both parties and concluded that the situation in India and Punjab for Sikhs has improved considerably since the mid-1990s. The BIA also concluded that members of Singh’s political party, the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar, no longer face widespread ill-treatment and harassment by the police. The record reflects that the BIA considered how these country conditions bore upon Singh individually. Reviewing the totality of the evidence, the BIA 2 concluded that only high-level members of Sikh militant groups are likely to face persecution in India. The BIA reasonably concluded that if current, low-level members of Sikh militant groups are not likely to be persecuted, then neither would Singh, who was at most viewed by police as a militant sympathizer decades ago. See Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 834 (9th Cir. 2014). Although Singh points to conflicting evidence in the record, “we have repeatedly recognized that the IJ and the BIA are entitled to rely on country reports that contain mixed messages, ambiguities, or inconsistencies.” Id. at 831. Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision to deny Singh’s applications for asylum and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals