# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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 furthe r asserts the he has

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 26, 2021

Lyle W. Cay ce Clerk Case: 20-60095 Document: 00515995879 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2021No. 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 cla im 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 rel oc ation is reasonable. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(ii). Reviewing the evidence does not compel us to
find that reloca tion 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 h is 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: 08/26/2021No. 20

- 60095

3 “requires that the publ ic 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 pro tect 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