Davinder Singh v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Davinder Singh v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

435 F. App'x 642

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 3, 2011

Docket09-70161

StatusUnpublished

This text of 435 F. App'x 642 (Davinder Singh v. Eric H. Holder Jr.) 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

Davinder Singh v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 435 F. App'x 642 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Davinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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 factual findings. Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 931 (9th Cir.2010). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Singh failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to India. See Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1122-23 (9th Cir.2004).

As to asylum and withholding of removal, Singh’s declaration and testimony indicate Singh reported several incidents of harm to Indian police, and they took no action to protect him from further harm. Despite Singh’s testimony that a govern *644 ment hospital allowed him to stay for a period of time following the final attack he experienced in India, substantial evidence does not support the agency’s finding that Singh failed to demonstrate past persecution by a person or group that the Indian government was unable or unwilling to control. See Afriyie, 613 F.3d at 931-34; see also Singh v. INS, 94 F.3d 1353, 1360 (9th Cir.1996). Accordingly, we remand for the agency to consider whether Singh has otherwise established past persecution, see Afriyie, 613 F.3d at 934, and in light of this, we also remand as to Singh’s future fear, see id. at 934-35 (if past persecution is established or assumed, the government has the burden of showing that relocation is both safe and reasonable; further, the agency must consider the requisite regulatory factors pertinent to the reasonableness of relocation). We therefore grant the petition and remand Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims 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).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; 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 **

Davinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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 factual findings. Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 931 (9th Cir.2010). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Singh failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to India. See Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1122-23 (9th Cir.2004).

As to asylum and withholding of removal, Singh’s declaration and testimony indicate Singh reported several incidents of harm to Indian police, and they took no action to protect him from further harm. Despite Singh’s testimony that a govern *644 ment hospital allowed him to stay for a period of time following the final attack he experienced in India, substantial evidence does not support the agency’s finding that Singh failed to demonstrate past persecution by a person or group that the Indian government was unable or unwilling to control. See Afriyie, 613 F.3d at 931-34; see also Singh v. INS, 94 F.3d 1353, 1360 (9th Cir.1996). Accordingly, we remand for the agency to consider whether Singh has otherwise established past persecution, see Afriyie, 613 F.3d at 934, and in light of this, we also remand as to Singh’s future fear, see id. at 934-35 (if past persecution is established or assumed, the government has the burden of showing that relocation is both safe and reasonable; further, the agency must consider the requisite regulatory factors pertinent to the reasonableness of relocation). We therefore grant the petition and remand Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims 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).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; 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)

435 F. App'x 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davinder-singh-v-eric-h-holder-jr-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack