NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GURWINDER SINGH

Petitioners, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 22-171

Agency No. A209-156-704

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted April 20, 2023 

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, CALLAHAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Gurwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal of an 

Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, 

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review the agency’s 

factual findings for substantial evidence and review questions of law de novo. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

MAY 3 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020);see Plancarte Sauceda 

v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022) (we must uphold the agency’s 

determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion). We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. 

1. The BIA assumed without deciding that Singh had established past 

persecution but found that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) had 

rebutted this assumption by showing that Singh could safely and reasonably relocate 

within India. DHS may rebut the presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution 

by showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) the applicant no longer has 

a well-founded fear of persecution in the country of their nationality or (2) that he

can safely and reasonably internally relocate. Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 659 

(9th Cir. 2019). Although the IJ decided Singh’s case in 2018 before we decided 

Singh v. Whitaker, the BIA applied that precedent in its 2022 decision and conducted 

an adequate individualized assessment of Singh’s circumstances. The BIA 

considered whether Singh would be targeted for his continued support of the Mann 

Party outside of Punjab.

First, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Singh can safely 

relocate in India. Singh argues that he cannot safely relocate because he is a member 

of the Mann Party and faces threats by both the Bharatiya Janata Party (“BJP”) and 

Akali Dal Badal Party (“Badal Party”). The record supports the conclusion that 
3 

Singh is a low-level member of the Mann Party, and the central authorities controlled 

by the BJP target “high-profile militants.” Singh is also unlikely to suffer 

persecution by Badal Party outside of Punjab since different political parties control 

other states. Singh, 914 F.3d at 659 (“there must be an area of the country where 

[the applicant] has no well-founded fear of persecution” for the applicant to safely 

relocate internally).1 

Second, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that it would be 

reasonable for Singh to internally relocate. See Plancarte Sauceda, 23 F.4th at 831. 

Singh argues that he only speaks Punjabi fluently and that “he has never lived or 

worked outside of Punjab.” But no legal restrictions prevent Singh from relocating, 

and he is a high school graduate with work experience and financial support from 

his family. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3); Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1214 

(9th Cir. 2004) (courts determine the reasonableness of internal relocation by 

considering the applicant’s age, health, education, and economic status). This record 

does not compel a different conclusion than the BIA reached.

Because the issue of internal relocation within India is dispositive, we decline 

to reach whether the change in political power in Punjab constituted a change in 

1 At argument, Singh argued for the first time that the BIA failed to distinguish 

between persecution by the political parties and that done by party supporters. This 

argument was not made in Singh’s opening brief, and so is deemed waived. Smith 

v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
4 

circumstances. INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (courts are not 

required to decide issues unnecessary to their results). 

2. Because “[a] failure to satisfy the lower standard of proof required to 

establish eligibility for asylum therefore necessarily results in a failure to 

demonstrate eligibility for withholding of deportation,” Singh’s withholding claim 

fails. Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000). 

3. Singh did not contest the IJ’s denial of his petition for CAT relief before 

the BIA. Since we consider only the grounds relied upon by the BIA, this claim falls 

outside the scope of our review. Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 

2004). 

PETITION DENIED.