Bhupinder Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Bhupinder Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch

632 F. App'x 417

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 28, 2016

Docket13-71168

StatusUnpublished

This text of 632 F. App'x 417 (Bhupinder Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bhupinder Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch, 632 F. App'x 417 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Bhupinder Pal Singh and Harjinder Kaur, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir.2011). We grant the petition for review and remand.

Singh stated police in India arrested and mistreated him, falsely accused him of having links with militants, told him to stop supporting the Lok Bhalai party, and told him to stop speaking against the Shiroma-ni Akali Dal Badal party. The agency concluded petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof for asylum and withholding of removal because Singh’s testimony was not clear as to the reason why police arrested him, and the background did not support Singh’s claim. The record does not support the agency’s conclusion. See id. at 1019-20 (agency’s conclusion that officials mistreated petitioner because of legitimate prosecution was not supported by substantial evidence, and record compelled finding that petitioner satisfied the nexus requirement); Chand v. INS, 222 F.3d 1066, 1077 (9th Cir.2000) (“we have *418 never assumed that all potentially relevant incidents of persecution in a country are collected in the State Department’s documentation”).

Further, it is not clear if the agency considered all relevant evidence in analyzing Singh’s CAT claim, including his past mistreatment by police. See Edu v. Holder, 624 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th Cir.2010).

Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand this case to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S, 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Bhupinder Pal Singh and Harjinder Kaur, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir.2011). We grant the petition for review and remand.

Singh stated police in India arrested and mistreated him, falsely accused him of having links with militants, told him to stop supporting the Lok Bhalai party, and told him to stop speaking against the Shiroma-ni Akali Dal Badal party. The agency concluded petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof for asylum and withholding of removal because Singh’s testimony was not clear as to the reason why police arrested him, and the background did not support Singh’s claim. The record does not support the agency’s conclusion. See id. at 1019-20 (agency’s conclusion that officials mistreated petitioner because of legitimate prosecution was not supported by substantial evidence, and record compelled finding that petitioner satisfied the nexus requirement); Chand v. INS, 222 F.3d 1066, 1077 (9th Cir.2000) (“we have *418 never assumed that all potentially relevant incidents of persecution in a country are collected in the State Department’s documentation”).

Further, it is not clear if the agency considered all relevant evidence in analyzing Singh’s CAT claim, including his past mistreatment by police. See Edu v. Holder, 624 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th Cir.2010).

Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand this case to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S, 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

632 F. App'x 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bhupinder-singh-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack