20-771

Singh v. Garland

BIA

Schoppert, IJ

A206 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 15th day 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, Trial 
2

Attorney, Office of Immigration 

Litigation, United States 

Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC.

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 petition 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, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 

asylum and withholding of removal. In re Sukhwinder Singh,

No. A206 508 540 (B.I.A. Feb. 5, 2020), aff’g No. A206 508 

540 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 7, 2018). We assume the 

parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 

history.

We have reviewed 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 within 
3

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). The Government may rebut 

this presumption if it establishes “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 controls 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 throughout the country, and he 

is young, speaks both Punjabi and Hindi, and successfully 

relocated to the United States. Contrary to Singh’s 

contention, the agency’s determination that there were many 
4

areas outside of Congress Party control and that he could 

safely relocate to one of those areas 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) (same); see also Matter of MZ-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 concluding that 

the Government rebutted the presumption that Singh has a wellfounded 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 petition for review is 

DENIED. 

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

Clerk of Court