N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AM RIT SINGH, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-73493 Age n c y No. A200-941-497 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 Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

18, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, R

AW L INSON, an d

HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. 1. The B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (the “ B oa rd” ) de nie d Singh’ s a pplic ation for a s y lum on the grounds tha t he ha d not shown pa st pe rse c ution by forc e s the gove rnm e nt wa s “ una ble or unwilling to c ontrol.” Kne z e v ic v. Ashc roft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th C ir. 2004). “ [A] ny re a sona b le fa c tfinde r would ha

ve be e n c o m pe lle d ” to c onc lude the B oa rd wa s wrong. Lolong v. Gonz a le s, 484 F.3d



# FIL ED N OV 10 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.1173, 1178 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba nc ); se e a lso 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(B ). Singh sought prote c tion from

the polic e a fte r the first tim e he wa s be ate n. B ut onc e the polic e le arne d tha

t his a tta c ke rs we re with theC ongre ss Pa rty , the y warne d him

to stop e spousing his politic a l vie w s a nd fa ile d to furthe r inve stiga te . Singh’ s a lle gations re ga

rding the polic e are buttre sse d by num e rous sta

te m e nts by

his fam ily and frie nds tha

t the B oa rd fa ile d to disc uss. It thus would ha v e be e n pointle ss for Singh to se e k the polic e ’ s he lp a fte r his se c ond be ating. Se e R ahimz a de h v. Holde r, 613 F.3d 916, 921–22 (9th C ir. 2010); Orne l a s-C have z v. Gonz a le s, 458 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th C ir. 2006). There c ord c om pe ls the c onc lusion tha

t the polic e we re not willing to prote c t Singh, so the B oa rd’ s finding that Singh did not show pa st pe rse c ution wa s not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Pa st pe rse c ution c re at e s a re butta ble pre sum

ption of futurepe rse c ution. 8 C .F.R . § 1208.13(b)(1). The gove rnm e n t m ay

re but tha t pre s um ption by showing the p e titione r c ould re a sona bly re loc ate e lse w he re in the pe titione r’ s c ountry of nationa lity . 8 C . F.R . § 1208.13(b)(1), (b)(3). He re , the B oa rd only c onc lude d the re wa s an a

bse nc e of e vide nc e tha

t Singh would be

ha rm e d e lse whe re in India . The gove rnm e n t produc e d no e vide nc e that showe d Singh c ould re a sona bly 2re loc ate e lse whe re . Furthe r, re q uiring Singh to de

m onstra te he would be ha

rm e d e lse whe re in the c ountry im p rope rly shifte d the gove rnm e nt’ s burde n to Singh. The B oa rd’ s c onc lusion ba se d

on the a bse nc e of e vide nc e wa s le g a l e rror. W e grant Singh’ s pe tition for re vie w a nd re m a nd to theB oa

rd to de te rm ine whe the r Singh c o uld re a sona bly re loc ate to a

nothe r part of India . 2. The sa m e le ga l e rrors a

pply to Singh’ s c la im for withholding of rem ova l. W e grant his pe tition for re v i e w in pa rt a nd re m a nd for the B oa

rd to a p propria te ly de te rm i ne whe t

h e r Singh c ould re a sona

bly re loc at e . 3. W e de ny

Singh’ s pe tition for re vie w a s to his c la im unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture . In c a se s whe re pe t itione rs suffe re d sim ila r pe rse c ution a s Singh did he re , we have he ld tha t the pe titione rs we re not m ore like ly tha n not to be

“ torture d” upon re turn. Se e Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056, 1064–66 (9th C ir. 2013); Ahm e d v. Ke i sle r, 504 F.3d 1183, 1200–01 (9th C ir. 2007); se e a lso 8 C .F.R . § 1208.18(a).

3PE T IT IO N G RANT E D IN PART , DE NIE D IN PART , AND

RE M A NDE D. CO ST S ARE AW ARDE D IN FAV O R O F SING H .

4