FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAYA SINGH, No. 15-73940 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A088-469-800 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. OPINION On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 6, 2019 * San Francisco, California Filed August 27, 2019 Before: Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Eugene E. Siler, ** and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam Opinion * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). ** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 SINGH V. BARR SUMMARY *** Immigration The panel denied a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection to Daya Singh, a citizen of India who asserted claims for relief based on his imputed political opinion and whistleblowing activities exposing police corruption. Singh challenged the Board’s precedential opinion in Matter of N–M–, 25 I. & N. Dec. 526 (BIA 2011), setting forth a three-factor standard for determining whether retaliation for opposition to official corruption or whistleblowing constitutes persecution on account of a political opinion. Under that test, the immigration judge considers: (1) “whether and to what extent the alien engaged in activities that could be perceived as expressions of anticorruption beliefs,” (2) “any direct or circumstantial evidence that the alleged persecutor was motivated by the alien’s perceived or actual anticorruption beliefs,” and (3) “evidence regarding the pervasiveness of government corruption, as well as whether there are direct ties between the corrupt elements and higher level officials.” The panel explained that because Matter of N—M’s three factors correspond to this circuit’s whistleblowing cases, it could not say that the Board’s interpretation was unreasonable. *** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. SINGH V. BARR 3 The panel held that the record did not compel the conclusion that police officers persecuted Singh on account of his imputed political opinion. The panel concluded that Singh’s asylum claim therefore fails. The panel agreed with Singh that contrary to Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017), the Board erroneously applied the “one central reason” nexus standard, rather than the “a reason” standard, to Singh’s withholding of removal claim. However, the panel concluded that it need not remand the case, because the Board adopted the immigration judge’s finding of no nexus between the harm to Singh and the alleged protected ground, and thus neither the result nor the Board’s basic reasoning would change. The panel also held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that Singh failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if he returned to India. COUNSEL Robert B. Jobe and Morgan Russell, Law Office of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, California, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals