19

- 3384 Singh v. Garland BIA Poczter, IJ A 206 097 338 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**


## SUMMARY ORDER

**RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER**  **FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS**  **COURT** = **S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX**  **OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “**  **SUMMARY ORDER ”**  **). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY**  **NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.**
**At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the**  **Thurgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 2**  **1 s**  **t da**  **y of M**  **a r**  **c h**  **, two thousand twenty** 
**- two** 

**.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **ROSEMARY S. POOLER ,**  7 **RICHARD J. SULLIVAN ,**  8 **STEVEN J. MENASHI ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **SIMRANJIT SINGH ,**  13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15
**v. 19** 

**- 3384**  16 **NAC** 17 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 18 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 **Respondent**

**.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Tobin Kohane , Esq., New York, NY. 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Joseph H. Hunt , Assistant Attorney 25 General ; Anthony P. Nicastro , 26 Assistant Director; Sherease 27 Pratt , Senior Litigation Counsel , 282 Office of Immigration Litigation, 1 United States Department of 2 Justice, Washington, D C. 3
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 4
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 5
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 6

is DENIED

. 7

Petitioner Simranjit Singh , a native and citizen of 8

India , seeks review of a September 18, 2019 , decision of the 9

BIA affirming a March 5, 2018 , decision of an Immigration 10
Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and 11
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. In 12

re Simranjit Singh , No. A 206 097 338 (B.I.A. Sept. 18, 2019 ), 13
aff’g No. A 206 097 338 (Immig. Ct. N

. Y

. City Mar. 5, 2018 ). 14
We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 15
and procedural history

. 16

We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 17

the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 18
Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s factual findings for 19
substantial evidence, and we review questions of law de novo. 20

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Pa loka v. Holder , 762 F.3d 191, 21
195 (2d Cir. 2014). 22
To establish eligibility, an asylum applicant must show 233 that he has suffered past persecution, or has a well

- founded 1
fear of future persecution, on account of race, religion, 2
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 3
political opinion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b) (1) . Past 4
persecution creates a rebuttable presumption of a well

5

founded fear of fu ture persecution on the basis of the 6
original claim. Id. The Government may rebut that 7
presumption if it shows by a preponderance of the evidence 8
that the applicant could avoid future persecution “by 9
relocating to another part of [his or her] country of 10
nationality . . . , and under all the circumstances, it would 11
be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.” 8 C.F.R. 12

§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), (ii); see also Matter of D

– I

– M

– , 24 I. 13
& N. Dec. 448, 450

– 51 (B.I.A. 2008) (discussing the burden 14
shifting frame work). 15
Singh claimed that he would be persecuted if he returned 16
to India because he had been involved with a woman of a higher 17
caste, Manpreet. He alleged that Manpreet’s family opposed 18
the relationship because he was of a lower caste and different 19
political aff iliation, and that Manpreet’s brothers beat him 20
when they caught him with her. Substantial evidence supports 214 the agency’s conclusion that Singh could reasonably relocate 1
to avoid future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. 2

§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B); Singh v. BIA , 435 F .3d 216, 219 (2d 3
Cir. 2006) (“Asylum in the United States is not available to 4

obviate re

- location to sanctuary in one’s own country.”). 5
Factors relevant in determining the reasonableness of 6
relocation include “whether the applicant would face other 7

seri ous harm in the place of suggested relocation; any ongoing 8
civil strife within the country; administrative, economic, or 9
judicial infrastructure; geographical limitations; and social 10
and cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health, and 11

social and fam ilial ties.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3) 12
(effective to Nov. 2018) ; Singh v. Garland , 11 F.4 th 106,114 13
(2d Cir. 2021). The agency considered the relevant factors, 14
finding that Singh’s fear was speculative because he had not 15
dated Manpreet for four years , they were not in touch, and 16

the dispute was “highly localized” because it involved this 17
personal conflict with her family. The agency further 18
considered Singh’s allegation that Manpreet’s brothers were 19
politically motivated, but it found n o basis for th at claim 20

because Manpreet’s brothers did not mention political 215 affiliations when they threatened Singh

. Although Singh 1

claimed that he would be unable to relocate because of his 2
caste, his caste is not written on his identity card nor is 3

it evident from h is name alone, and he admitted that strangers 4
would not know his caste unless he affirmatively revealed it. 5
The country conditions evidence did not reflect that caste 6

affiliation limits an individual’s ability to relocate. 7
Moreover, the IJ took administrative notice of a 2016 U.S. 8
State Department Human Rights Report, which reflects that the 9

Indian constitution bans caste discrimination. 10
Singh contends that the IJ, by taking administrative 11
notice of the State Department report, relieved the 12
Government of its burden of establishing that he could 13

relocate. However, DHS argued that Singh would be able to 14
relocate at the close of the hearing

. And the IJ may rely 15

on “all of the t estimony and evidence contained in the record, 16
including the background information” when analyzing 17

reasonable relocation. Matter of D

– I

– M

– , 24 I. & N. Dec. at 18

451; see also Singh , 11 F.4 th at 118 (concluding that agency 19
did not err in concluding that Gov ernment met its burden of 20
establishing ability to relocate where substantial evidence 216 supported agency’s relocation findings). 1
Singh argues that the agency ignored evidence that he 2

would be unable to relocate , but the evidence he cites does 3

not undermine the agency’s conclusion

. He relies on an 4
affidavit from members of Manpreet’s village, which avers 5
that they are monitoring the community and his family for his 6
return, not that they will seek him out or will know if he 7

returns to another area o f India. Singh also argues that the 8

IJ failed to consider the statement of a friend of Manpreet’s 9
confirming that S ingh and Manpreet are still in love and that 10
Singh calls her to check on Manpreet

. B u t the agency does 11
not have to explicitly address each item of evidence, and 12

this statement does not indicate that Manpreet’s family would 13
pursue Singh in other regions of India. See Xiao Ji Chen v. 14
U.S. Dep’t. of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 33 6 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006) 15

( requiring IJ to consider “significant factual assertions,” 16

but not to “expressly parse or refute on the record” each 17
piece of evidence ) (internal quotation marks omitted)

. 18
Singh further contends that the IJ should not have relied 19
solely on the U.S. State Department report. However, t he IJ 20
properly took administrative notice of the report, and did 217 not rely on it to the exclusion of other evidence

. See 8 1
C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv)(A) (authorizing “administrative 2
notice of commonly known facts such as current events or the 3
contents of official documents”); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 4
546 F.3d 138, 166 (2d Cir. 2008) (“ [W] hile we have emphasized 5

that State De partment reports are not binding on the BIA, we 6
have recognized that such reports are usually the best 7
available source of information on country conditions.” ) 8
(internal quotation marks omitted). As the IJ f ound , the 9
State Department report reflected that the Indian 10
constitution prohibits caste discrimination , registration of 11

caste status was for affirmative action purposes, the 12

government had implemented programs to empower lower caste 13

members , and caste discrimination was common in rural areas

. 14
The repo rt th us supports the IJ’s conclusion that Singh could 15

relocate to an urban area , particularly considering his 16
testimony that his caste status is not included on his 17

identification or evident from his name. Singh’s own country 18

conditions evidence does not support his position that he 19

will be unable to relocate. He submitted evidence of honor 20
killings, primarily of women who marr ied against their 218 family’s wishes , but Singh had not been in a relationship 1

with Manpreet for many years and did not testify to any 2
definite plan to marry , and the evidence did not show that 3
Manpreet’s family would or could pursue him throughout India

. 4
In sum, the agency’s conclusion that Singh could 5
reasonably relocate within India is supported by substan tial 6
evidence, given that his fear was limited to harm by 7
Manpreet’s family in the event he returned to that area

. See 8

8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), (ii). The relocation finding 9
is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal , and CAT 10

relief. See Lec aj v. Holder , 616 F.3d 119

– 20 (2d Cir. 2010). 11
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 12

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 13

stays VACATED. 14

FOR THE COURT: 15 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 16 Clerk of Court 17