20

- 771 Singh v. Garland BIA Schoppert , IJ A 206 508 540 

### 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**  **for the Second Circuit, held at the**  **Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square,**  **in the City of New York, on the**  **15 th**  **da y of**  **March, two thousand**  **twenty -**  **two**
**. PRESENT:**  **ROSEMARY S. POOLER ,**  **ROBERT D. SACK ,**  **RICHARD C. WESLEY ,**  **Circuit Judges.**

**_____________________________________ SUKHWINDER**  **SINGH ,**  **Petitioner ,** 
**v. 20**  **- 771**  **NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND,**  **UNITED STATES**  **ATTORNEY GENERAL ,**  **Respondent**
**.**

**_____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER**  **:** Michael W. Pottetti , Port Jefferson, NY
. **FOR RESPONDENT:** Jeffrey Bossert Clark , Acting Assistant Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad , Assistant Director ; Julia J. Tyler , Trial2 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation , United States Depar tment of Justice, Washington, D C. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review is DENIED . Sukhwinder Singh , a native and citizen of India , seeks review of a February 5, 2020 , decision of the BIA affirming

a May 7 , 201 8 , decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum and withholding of removal. In re Sukhwinder Singh , No. A 206 508 540 (B.I.A. Feb. 5, 2020 ), aff’g No. A 206 508 540 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 7, 2018 ). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and p rocedural history.
We have review ed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). The agency reasonably concluded that Singh, who was presumed to have a well

- founded fear and likelihood of political persecution by local Congress Party members , could safely relocate within3 India to avoid future harm. An applicant who has suffered past persecution is presumed to have a well

- founded fear and likelihood of future persecution on the same basis as the past harm . 8 C.F.R. § § 1208.13(b)(1) , 1208.16(b)(1)
. T he Government may rebut this presumption if it esta blishes “ by a preponderance of the evidence ” that the applicant can “avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country of nationality . . . , and under all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.” 8 C.F.R. § § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), (ii) , 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B), (ii) ; see Surinder Singh v. BIA , 435 F.3d 216, 219 (2d Cir. 2006). The IJ reasonably concluded that Singh could safely relocate to another part of India based on evidence that citizens may move freely and live throughout India, the Congress Party control s the government of only a small minority of states, law enforcement is largely the responsibility of the individual states, people of his religion live without trouble throughou t the country, and he is young, speaks both Punjabi and Hindi, and successfully relocated to the United States
. Contrary to Singh’s contention, t he agency ’s determination that there were many4 areas outside of Congress Party control and that he could safel y relocate to one of those area s was a sufficiently specific finding as to area of relocation. See 8 C.F.R. § § 1208.13(b) (1)(i)(B) (requiring Government to show relocation to “another part” of the country is reasonable) , (3) , 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B), (3) (sam e) ; see also Matter of M

Z

- M

- R

- , 26 I. & N. Dec. 28, 33

– 34 & n.5 (B.I.A. 2012) ( requiring government to show area for relocation, but that burden can be met by showing that conditions outside of the home region “were not such that the applicant would have a well

- founded fear”) ; Surinder Singh , 435 F.3d at 219 (upholding denial of withholding where record demonstrated that petitioner could relocate safely elsewhere in India). Accordingly, the agency did not err in conclud ing that the Government rebutted the presumption that Singh has a well

founded fear and likelihood of persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), (ii) , 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B), (ii) ; Surinder Singh , 435 F.3d at 218

– 19. For the foregoing reasons, the peti tion for review is
DENIED . FOR THE COURT: Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , Clerk of Court