N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT GURDASHAN SINGH,

Pe t i tione r, v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 19-70861 Age n c y No. A205-072-017
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm i tte d Oc tobe r 6, 2020 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : GR

AB E R and W . FLETC HER , C i rc uit Judge s, a nd FREUDENTHAL, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED OCT 15 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Na nc y D. Fre ude ntha l, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of W

y om ing, sitting by

de signa tion.Pe titione r Gurda sha n Singh 1 se e ks re vie w of the B o ard of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (" B IA" ) de c ision a ffirm ing a n im m igrat ion judge ’ s (" IJ" ) de n ia l of his
c la im s for a sy lum , re lie f unde r the C onve ntion a ga inst Torture (" C AT" ), and hum anita rian a sy lum . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w de novo que stions of la

w, a nd we m ust uphold fa c tua l findings if the y are supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Para da

v. Se ssions, 902 F.3d 901, 908 (9th C ir. 2018). W e grant the pe tition in pa rt, de ny the pe tition in pa

rt, a nd re m and. 1. W e c annot de te rm ine if substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t the gove rnm e nt re butte d the pre sum ption of a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ut ion by showing tha t Pe titione r c ould re l oc a te sa fe ly " outside of Punja b ," so we re m and the a sy l um c la im for furthe r c onside ra t ion. W he n the gove rnm e nt ide ntifie s a

“ ge ne ra lly

de fine d a re a ” for re loc a tion, thegove rnm e nt ty pic a lly m ust m ake “ a

m ore c o m

pre he nsive showing of proof tha t the e ntire ty

of the a re a is sa fe for re loc a tion, a s c om pa re d to, for e xam

ple , a spe c ific c ity .” Singh v. Whita ke r, 914 F.3d 654, 660 (9th C ir. 2019). He re , the gove rnm e nt’ s re ports of
c ountry c onditions were outda

te d by at le a st four a

nd a ha l f y e ars, a

nd by a s m any a s six a nd a ha lf y e a rs, at the tim e of Pe titione r’ s m e rits he aring. Thus, those

1 The re c ord a l so c onta ins a n a lte rna tive spe l ling for Pe titione r's first na m e , " Gurda rsha n." For c o nsiste nc y , we use the spe l ling tha t a ppe ars in the offic ia l c a se c a ption. 2re ports c ould not de fe a t the pre sum ption of futurepe rse c ution. Se e Para da , 902 F.3d at 912–13 (holding tha t " re lia n c e on signific antly

or m a te ria lly

outda te d
c ountry re ports c annot suffic e to re but the pre sum ption of futurepe rse c ution," and gran ting thepe tition whe re the re ports " we re a lre a dy a ha lf-de c a de out-of-da

te by the t im e of the IJ he aring" ). The B IA a lso re lie d on its be lie f that Pe titione r " re side d in De lhi, without inc i de nt," for a

bout a m onth be fore he fle d to the Unite d State s. B ut Pe titione r te stifie d tha

t he spe nt the tim e in De lhi sta y ing by him se l f in a

house tha

t his

" a ge nt" re nte d; his te stim ony a l so sugge ste d tha

t he did not c om e and go fre e ly from the house . The re is no e vide nc e in the re c ord tha t Pe t itione r live d ope nly

in De lhi or disc lose d his ide ntity to a ny one while he wa s the re . M ore ove r, the
e xpe rt’ s te s tim ony

tha t c om m unitie s of Sikhs e xist throughout India ha s little
re le va nc e to Pe titione r’ s c i rc um sta nc e s. Se e Singh, 914 F.3d a t 661 (e xpla ining that the B IA " m

ust c o nduc t a

re a sone d a

n a ly sis with re spe c t to a

pe titione r’ s individua liz e d

situa t i on" to de te rm ine whe t

he r the pe titione r c an sa fe ly and
re a s ona bly re loc a te ). Pe titione r’ s c la im for a sy lum

is ba se d on the pe rse c ution tha t he suffe re d be c a

u se of his m e m

be rship in theM ann Pa

rty , not on his sta

tus a s a Sikh.

3In e sse nc e , tha t le a ve s the re m a inde r of the e xpe rt’ s te stim ony and the fa c t that Pe titione r fle w out of De lhi’ s a irport using his own pa ssport. W e c annot de te rm i ne if the a ge nc y

would ha v e draw n the sa

m e c onc lusion a s to the pre s um ption of futurepe rse c ution using tha t m ore lim ite d

pool of e vide nc e , so we re m and for furthe r c onside ra tion of Pe titione r’ s a sy l um c la im
. 2. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s de nia l of Pe titione r’ s C AT
c la im . The re c ord doe s not c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t Pe titione r " m o re like ly

tha n not would be

the subje c t of torture should here turn to India
. " Id. at 663; se e a lso id. (" Although the

B IA’ s de nia l of Singh’ s C AT c la i m re lie d in pa rt on its de te rm i nation tha

t he c ould re loc a te , a

nd we re m and to theB IA for re c o nside ra tion of the latte r de t e rm i nation in c o nne c tion with his a sy l um . . . c la i m [] , we se e no re a s on to do the

sa m e for his C AT c la i m ." ). 3. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s de nia l of hum anita rian a sy lum
. The ha rm tha t Pe titione r suffe re d doe s not rise to the le ve l of " a troc ious" or

" e xtre m e ly

se ve re pe rse c ution" that wa rrants hum an ita

ria n a sy lum . Se e id. a

t 662 (c olle c ting c a se s). And the re c ord doe s not c om pe l a finding tha

t Pe titione r e sta blishe d " a re a sona

ble possibility

tha t he . . . m ay

suffe r othe r se rious ha

rm " upon re m ova l to India . 8 C
. F.R . § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B ).

4PE T IT IO N G RANT E D IN PART , DE NIE D IN PART , AND

RE M A NDE D. E ac h par ty shall be ar its ow n c osts.

5