United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60095

Summary Calendar

Dalwinder Singh, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A201 735 552

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Dalwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions us to review 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ approval of his order of removal. He 

argues that he has proven the elements of his asylum claim for past 

persecution and fear of future persecution. He further asserts the he has 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 26, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60095 Document: 00515995879 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2021
No. 20-60095

2

shown he will be tortured in the future. The Board rejected Singh’s appeal 

of his past persecution claim on the grounds of the harm he described not 

being extreme enough. The Board also rejected Singh’s fear of future 

persecution claim because Singh did not show relocation within his home 

country would be unreasonable. We review decisions of the Board with 

deference and so overturn their conclusions only when the evidence compels 

us. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996).

Persecution for the purposes of a past persecution asylum claim must 

be extreme conduct. Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006); see

also Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012). Our 

precedent holds that harm analogous to what Singh described experiencing 

does not rise to the level of persecution. See, e.g., Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 

F.3d 579, 584 (5th Cir. 1996); Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187-88 (5th 

Cir. 2004). Therefore, the Board’s decision is in line with the law of this 

circuit.

Asylum can also be based on a reasonable fear of future persecution. 

Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444-45 (5th Cir. 2001). That fear 

must be subjectively reasonable, which is not at issue here because Singh is 

credible. However, that fear must also be objectively reasonable and the law 

states that this element is not fulfilled when internal relocation is reasonable. 

8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(ii). Reviewing the evidence does not compel us to 

find that relocation is unreasonable in this case. 

Finally, we are not compelled to find that Singh will be tortured in the 

future and that the Indian Government will acquiesce to that torture. An 

alien seeking CAT protection must demonstrate that it is more likely than

not that he will be tortured in his home country “at the instigation of or with 

the consent or acquiesce of a public official or other person acting in an 

official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). Acquiescence 

Case: 20-60095 Document: 00515995879 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2021
No. 20-60095

3

“requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, 

have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his or her legal 

responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.” 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.18(a)(7). Singh argues that his local police did not protect him in the 

past, but he cannot show that these police officers or any government official 

would acquiesce to his torture. See Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th 

Cir. 2017) (an alien’s CAT claim could not succeed because it “rests wholly 

upon surmise and speculation” (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted)). 

DENIED.

Case: 20-60095 Document: 00515995879 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/26/2021