T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

Th e H o n o r ab l e Ed w a r dR. K o rma n , Se n i o rD i s tr i c tJu d g e f o rth e U . S. ** D i s tr i c tC ourtf

orE a s t e rn N e w Y ork, B r ookl y n, s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on.

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T P AR S HU T NA M S I NG H S AN DH U, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 71036 A ge nc yN o. A 077- 818- 586 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d Jul y11, 2011 S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B e f or e : C L I F T O N a nd N . R . S M I T H , C i r c ui tJudge s , a nd K O R M A N , S e ni or D i stri ctJudg e. ** P a r s hutna m S i ngh S andhu pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ de c i s i on a f

f i rm i ng a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de ni a l of hi s appl i c a t i ons f

or asyl u m , w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al , an dp ro t ect i o n u n d er th e C o n v en t i o n A g ai n st 

# FI LED JU L 18 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

T orture. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i al e v id e n c e , I

. N . S. v . E l i as - Zac ar i as , 502 U . S . 478 ( 1992) , a nd w e de nythe pe t i t i on f o rr e v ie w . S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the B I A ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tS a ndhu ha s not d em o n strat edp astp ersecu t i o n o n acco u n to f a p ro t ect edg ro u n d , fo r tw o reaso n s. F i rst , S an d h u fai l s t o sh o w th atth e reco rdco m p el s th e co n cl u si o n th ath i s arrest w a s n o t in r e la tio n to ac r im in a l in v e s tig a tio n . See D in u v . A s h c r o ft, 372 F . 3d 1041, 1 0 4 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . S e c o n d , S a n d h u f a ils to d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e r e c o r dc o m p e ls the concl usi on thatthe P un j ab po l i ce pers ec ut ed hi m base d o n i m pu t ed po l i t i ca l opi ni on. T he r e c or d doe s note ve n s how tha tthe P unj ab pol i c e w e r e a w a r e of the p o litic a l o p in io n s o f

th e te rr o r is ts w h o s e o p in io n s S a n d h u s e e k s to h a v e im p u te dto h i m. S a ndhu ha s a l s o f a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e a n obj e c t i ve l yw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n w ith d ir e c t a n ds p e c if ic e v id e n c e . 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 3 ( b ) ; P r as ad v . I .N .S., 4 7 F .3 d3 3 6 , 3 3 8 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). In th e c o n tex t o f th e c h an g e in In d ia’s pol i t i c a l c l i m a t e f

orS i khs s i nc e 1994, S a ndhu’ s t e s t i m onya nd s upport i ng a f f i da vi t s a r e nots uf

f i c i e nt l ydi r e c tors pe c i f

i c t o c om pe l af

i ndi ng tha tS a ndhu m ai nt ai ns an obj ec t i vel y w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on base d o n ei ther h e ldo rim p u te dp o litic a l o p in io n .3

S ub st ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the B IA ’ s deni alof w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al u n d e rth e U .N . C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e . T h e r e c o r dd o e s n o t c o m p e l a concl usi on thati ti s m ore l i kel y than n otthatS andh u w ou l d b e t ortured up on re turn to I n d ia . See Si nh a v. H older , 56 4 F . 3d 10 15 , 10 26 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). P E T I T I O N D E N I E D .