NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 20-1071 ________________ D.W.; A.C., Appellants v. SUSAN RAUFER, in her capacity as director of the Newark Asylum Office; DIRECTOR UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2-19-cv-00986) District Judge: Honorable Gerald J. Pappert ________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1 on November 10, 2020 Before: HARDIMAN, GREENBERG, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Filed: December 22, 2020) ________________ OPINION* ________________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. SCIRICA, Circuit Judge Appellant D.W. contends the government’s denial of his asylum application was arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, not supported by substantial evidence, and in violation of his due process rights. We disagree and will affirm the District Court’s order granting summary judgment. I. D.W. is a citizen of India who resides in the United States with temporary legal status. He was born into one of the lowest castes in India’s caste system—members of the lowest castes are collectively referred to as Dalits. Dalits face discrimination and violence in India, especially in rural areas, despite legal protection and affirmative action programs. D.W. applied for asylum based on past persecution suffered due to his status as a Dalit and his political opinion against casteism. Throughout his schooling in India, D.W. was threatened and assaulted several times by upper caste members for expressing an ambition to rise above the social status the caste system established for Dalits. D.W. persisted, obtaining a degree in dental medicine and dental surgery in 2014. He then moved to the United States to pursue a master’s degree in public health, which he obtained in 2015. D.W. married his wife in 2016 in the United States, without a traditional ceremony. Planning to have a traditional wedding ceremony, he traveled to India in 2017, and his wife planned to meet him there. But these plans were cancelled because D.W. decided it would not be safe to have the 2 ceremony when caste-related violence erupted in India and his family received a threatening letter. D.W. returned to the United States. Shortly after returning, D.W. submitted his application for asylum. The Newark Asylum Office of the United States Citizen and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) reviewed the application, interviewed D.W., and issued a notice of intent to deny the application (“NOID”). In the NOID, USCIS found that D.W. suffered past persecution, which created a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. But USCIS found the presumption was rebutted because a preponderance of the evidence established that D.W. could avoid future persecution by relocating to a metropolitan area in India and that it would be reasonable for him to do so under the circumstances. To support its conclusion, USCIS cited D.W.’s education and skills, India’s affirmative action program and prohibition on discrimination, and reports indicating ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals