NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 5 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TAJINDER SINGH, No. 16-71917 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-585-719 v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 13, 2018 San Francisco, California Before: FISHER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BUCKLO,** District Judge. Tajinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2011). For the following reasons, we grant in part and deny in part the petition for review. We grant Singh’s petition with respect to his asylum and withholding of removal claims because the BIA failed to conduct a sufficiently individualized analysis of Singh’s ability to safely and reasonably relocate within India. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(3), 1208.16(b)(3). The BIA’s relocation analysis focused on Singh’s fear that, if he returned to India, the Punjabi police might locate him and subject him to further persecution because of his past political activities with the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar Party (“Mann Party”) in Punjab. But in concentrating its analysis on Singh’s past activities, the BIA overlooked another aspect of Singh’s claim—specifically, that his intended future political activities with the Mann Party might expose him to harm in areas outside Punjab. Because the BIA failed to address Singh’s fear that Congress Party members might persecute him for his continued political activism in other parts of India, its relocation analysis was inadequate. See N. Singh v. Whitaker, No. 16-70823, 2019 WL 310400, at *5 & n.2 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2019) (remanding asylum and withholding claims to the BIA to conduct an individualized analysis of petitioner’s relocation prospects “in light of the persons and entities that caused [his] past 2 16-71917 persecution” and his “stated intent” to continue his political activism wherever he relocates); Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1214-15 (9th Cir. 2004) (remanding the issue of reasonableness of relocation to the BIA because the agency failed to take into account several factors outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)). Accordingly, we remand Singh’s asylum and withholding claims to be reevaluated in light of our decision in N. Singh, 2019 WL 310400.1 With respect to Singh’s claim for CAT relief, however, we deny the petition for review. To qualify for CAT protection, Singh had to demonstrate that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals