NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted January 27, 2021* Decided January 28, 2021 Before MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge No. 20‐1448 PARVINDER SINGH, Petition for Review of an Order of the Petitioner, Board of Immigration Appeals. v. No. A202‐010‐180 MONTY WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. ORDER Parvinder Singh, an Indian citizen belonging to a Sikh‐dominated political party, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings based on changed country conditions— namely, increased police efforts to target him for his past political activity. The Board *We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). We have substituted Monty Wilkinson, the acting Attorney General, for the respondent. FED. R. APP. P. 43(c). No. 20‐1448 Page 2 denied Singh’s motion to reopen because he failed to show a material change in country conditions sufficient to warrant reopening. We deny the petition for review. The prior proceedings are summarized in our decision, Singh v. Barr, 770 F. Appʹx 758 (7th Cir. 2019), but we highlight key details here. Singh belonged to a faction of Shiromani Akali Dal—a Sikh‐dominated political party that advocates the creation of an independent nation in what is now the Indian state of Punjab. Singh’s faction, Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar), also known as the Mann faction, was at odds with the dominant Badal faction in power in Punjab. Singh testified to three incidents from 2011 to 2014 when he was attacked either by police or adherents of the Badal faction while participating in political activities. After leaving India and making his way to the United States, he was detained by border security guards in Arizona. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, and Singh applied for asylum and withholding of removal based on the harm he feared in India by the Badal faction and the Indian government. He also sought protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge denied all forms of relief, concluding that Singh was insufficiently credible, that his injuries did not amount to persecution, and that he could safely relocate within India if he returned. The BIA upheld that determination, and we denied his petition for review. Id. Three months later, Singh moved to reopen his proceedings based on new evidence and changed country circumstances in India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (restricting proceedings to evidence that “could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing”). He also sought a stay of removal. He maintained that Indian police falsely identified him as a terrorist affiliated with the Khalistani, another Sikh separatist group; raided his home in India looking ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals