FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 10 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JASWANT SINGH, No. 18-73011 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-460-484 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 7, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: MURGUIA and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS,*** District Judge. Jaswant Singh petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order * 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 William K. Sessions III, United States District Judge for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation. finding him ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition in part and dismiss in part.1 We review the BIA’s factual findings underlying a determination that an alien has not established eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief for substantial evidence. Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2020). To prevail under the substantial evidence standard, the petitioner “must show that the evidence not only supports, but compels the conclusion that these findings and decisions are erroneous.” Cordon-Garcia v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir. 2000). Where, as here, the BIA has also conducted its own review of the evidence, we review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and limit our review to the BIA’s decision “except to the extent the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Id. 1. The BIA did not err by concluding that Singh was not eligible for asylum despite the IJ’s finding that he had a subjective fear of persecution. “When an asylum applicant has established that he suffered past persecution, the burden is on the government to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant either no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution in the country of his 1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite only those facts necessary to resolve the issues on appeal. 2 nationality, or that he can reasonably relocate internally to an area of safety.” Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 659 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)). Here, the BIA determined, and the record supports, that Singh could relocate outside of the Punjab area because: (1) he was active in the Bohan Samaj Party (BSP) only in his home and nearby villages and he was not known outside of this area for being a member of the party; (2) apart from his own speculation, he did not offer evidence that the police specifically target, harass, or harm BSP members; (3) he never had any encounters with ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals