Surinder Singh v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 18-1016 ___________ SURINDER SINGH, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A087-998-807) Immigration Judge: Honorable Ramin Rastegar ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 2, 2018 Before: JORDAN, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: July 6, 2018) ___________ OPINION * ___________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Surinder Singh petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision ordering his removal and denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). For the reasons that follow, we will deny his petition. I. Singh is a citizen of India who arrived in the United States in 2010. Upon his arrival at the border in Texas, he was charged with being removable for not possessing valid entry documents. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Several weeks later, Singh was given a credible fear interview by an asylum officer, to whom Singh expressed a fear of returning to India. Once in removal proceedings, Singh, through counsel, conceded his removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. In support of his application, Singh alleged the following account. When he was fifteen years old, Singh joined the Akali Dal political party, which was opposed to the Congress party. He realized as a teenager that he was sexually attracted to men, and before he left India he had a secret sexual relationship with a male friend from school, who was the only person who knew about Singh’s sexual orientation. In March 2010, he was engaging in a sexual act with his friend in a farmhouse when members of the Congress party discovered them and beat them. Singh’s attackers kidnapped them and locked them in a room. After a few hours, Singh and his friend were able to break out of the room and run to a police 2 station. The police officers threatened Singh because of his political affiliation when he arrived at the station. His attackers arrived at the police station shortly after they did and reported that Singh and his friend had been engaged in sexual activity. Upon hearing this, the police officer who was in charge became enraged, beat Singh and his friend, and warned them that if they continued their sexual relationship, they would be arrested and likely killed. Singh was detained until his father paid a bribe for his release the next day. He was then hospitalized for about a week. Several days after he was released from the hospital, Singh left India. An IJ held a hearing on the merits of Singh’s application and subsequently issued a written decision denying all relief. The ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals