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

e sponde n t . No. 12-73108 Age n c y No. A094-917-229 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 Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 16, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c KEOW

N, R AW L INSON, and DAVIS, *** C irc uit Judge s. Sodhi Singh, a

native and c itiz e n of India , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l of a de c ision by

an 

# FIL ED JAN 22 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. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble Andre M . Dav is, Se nior C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Fourth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.Im

m i gration Judge(“ IJ” ) de ny i ng his a pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture (“ C AT” ). The IJ found Singh c re dible and the subje c t of pa st pe rse c ution on a c c ount of his politic a l opinion in support of a

pro-Sikh politic a l pa

rty . The IJ c onc lude d, howe ve r, tha t the g ove rnm e nt ha d re butte d the pre sum ption of a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution on the

ba sis tha t Singh c ould re a sona

bly an d sa fe ly

re loc ate e lse whe re in India . The IJ re

je c t e d Singh’ s c la im s of pa st pe rse c ution on a c c ount of his m e m b e rship in the

pa rtic ula r soc ia l groups of journalists a dvoc ating for m inority rights a nd the B a lm i k i e thnic group. The B IA a ffirm e d. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w de novo the B IA’ s de te rm i nation of pure ly

le g a l que stions a

nd re vie wfa c tua l findings for substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e Zhi v . Holde r , 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th C ir. 2014). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not c om

m it le ga l e rror in its re l oc ation a na ly sis. The B IA prope rly pla c e d the burde n on the gove rnm e nt to de m onstra te by the pre p onde ranc e of the e vide nc e tha t re loc ation wa s re a sona

ble . The B IA re v ie we d the IJ’ s individualiz e d an a ly sis a nd a ffirm e d the IJ’ s de te rm ination tha t Singh c ould re a sona

bly re loc ate outside of his hom e sta te , Punja b.

2Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t Singh c ould re a s ona bly re loc ate within India . R e ports from the State De p artm e nt a

nd fore ign gove rnm e nts re fle c t

tha t Sikhs oc c upy

positions a

t high le v e ls within the gove rnm e nt a

nd tra ve l a nd worship fre e ly

throughout the

c ountry . The re c ord a lso c onta ins e vide n c e tha

t Sikhs c an re loc ate within India to e sc a pe the atte ntion of loc a l polic e . Although the B IA did not identify

a spe c ific c ity

or sta te within India to whic h Singh c ould re l oc ate , finding tha t he c ould sa fe ly and re a sona bly re loc ate e lse whe re in India

outsidethe Punja

b sta te is suffic ie nt. Se e K

ne ze v ic v . Ashc roft , 367 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th C ir. 2004). Singh’ s e duc ation, la ngua ge skills, a

nd pa st re side nc e in a

ne ighboring sta

te without inc i de nt a

re furthe r e vide nc e of the re a s ona ble ne s s of re loc ation. As the B IA note d , “ c um

ulative ly , the e vide nc e ” supports the

IJ’ s re loc ation de te rm ination. W e re je c t Singh’ s re que s t for re m and on pa st pe rse c ution on a c c ount of his m e m b e rship in pa

rtic ula r soc i a l groups. TheB IA did not ignore the se c la im s. C onc e rning his c la im

of pe rse c ution a s a journa list a dvoc ating for m i nority rights, the B IA found no ge ne ra l pa tte rn of pe rse c ution of inde pe nde n t m e dia

and note d that Singh’ s journa lism

re c ord is limite d to six or se ve n a rtic le s, none of whic h c ritic iz e the India

n gove rnm e nt. C onc e rning his c la im of pe rse c ution a s a

m e m be r of the B a lm iki group, the

B IA sta te d tha t “ to the e xte nt the re sponde nt’ s c la im is 3ba se d on his e xpe rie nc e s a s a ‘ lowe r c a ste ’ Da l it Hindu, ma ny of whom are una ble to re loc at e be c a

use of la c k of e duc ation a nd funds, those

c irc um sta

n c e s do not a pply to [Singh] .” B e c a

use the B IA suffic i e ntly a ddre s se d Singh’ s c la im s , re m and is not re q uire d. As Singh “ fa il[e d] to sa

tisfy the lowe r sta

nda rd of proof re quire d to e sta blish e ligibility for a sy lum

[he ] ne c e ssa

rily fa ils to e sta

blish e ligibility

for withholding of re m ova l.” Barrios v . Holde r , 581 F.3d 849, 854 (9th C ir. 2009). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t Singh is not e ntitle d to C A T re lie f, pa

rtic ula rly in light of Singh’ s a

b ility to re a sona

bly re loc ate . Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(3)(ii) (sta ting tha t e vide nc e of a

b i lity to re loc ate is re le va nt in de te rm i ning e ligibility for C AT re lie f). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

4