NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PARGAT SINGH BRAR, No. 21-248 Agency No. Petitioner, A208-565-428 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 13, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: SANCHEZ and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and JACKSON,*** District Judge. Pargat Brar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) order denying his applications for asylum, * 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 Brian A. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we review for substantial evidence the BIA’s determination that Mr. Brar failed to show that the harm he suffered rose to the level of persecution.1 We grant the petition because “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude” Mr. Brar was persecuted. Antonio v. Garland, 58 F.4th 1067, 1072 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Garland v. Ming Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669, 1677 (2021)). 1. In November 2014, four men beat Mr. Brar for ten minutes, stopping only after he agreed to join their political party. The police—who told Mr. Brar that they served the attackers’ political party—refused to write a report or protect Mr. Brar. In January 2015, Mr. Brar’s attackers called him and threatened to kill him for failing to join their party. Then, in June 2015, they physically assaulted Mr. Brar again; specifically, four men beat him for ten minutes while threatening to kill him if he refused to join their party. Mr. Brar fled India two months later, in August 2015, and his attackers still contact his family every six months to ask about him. These facts compel a finding of persecution. See Singh v. Garland, 57 F.4th 643, 652–57 (9th Cir. 2022); Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632–37 (9th Cir. 2022); Fon v. 1 “We review factual findings for substantial evidence and legal questions de novo.” Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022). We need not address whether de novo review should apply, or discuss the nuances of the two standards, because the harm Mr. Brar suffered rose to the level of persecution under the more deferential “substantial evidence” standard of review. See id. at 633 n.2. 2 Garland, 34 F.4th 810, 813–15 (9th Cir. 2022); Aden v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 1073, 1082–84 (9th Cir. 2021); Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1213–17 (9th Cir. 2018). The BIA cites three cases to support its finding of no persecution, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals