21-6269

Singh v. Garland

BIA

Golovnin, IJ

A216 385 102

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 A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY 

COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 

2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 

Square, in the City of New York, on the 12 3 th day of May, two thousand twenty4 three.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 JOSEPH F. BIANCO,

8 WILLIAM J. NARDINI,

9 SARAH A. L. MERRIAM,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _____________________________________

12

13 JAI SINGH,

14 Petitioner,

15

16 v. 21-6269

17 NAC

18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 

19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 _____________________________________

22

23
2

1 FOR PETITIONER: Anas J. Ahmed, Esq., Pannun the Firm, P.C., 

2 Jackson Heights, NY.

3

4 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 

5 General; Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation 

6 Counsel, Todd J. Cochran, Trial Attorney, 

7 Office of Immigration Litigation, United 

8 States Department of Justice, Washington, 

9 DC.

10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 

11 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 

12 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

13 Petitioner Jai Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of an April

14 13, 2021, decision of the BIA affirming a December 6, 2018, decision of an 

15 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 

16 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jai Singh, No. A216 385 102

17 (B.I.A. Apr. 13, 2021), aff’g No. A216 385 102 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 6, 2018). 

18 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 

19 history.

20 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan 

21 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s legal 

22 conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Y.C. v. 
3

1 Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are 

2 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to 

3 the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 

4 Singh challenges the agency’s conclusion that he could safely relocate 

5 within India to avoid persecution by the Congress Party on account of his support 

6 for the Shiromani Akali Dal Mann Amritsar Party (“SADA”). Where, as here, an 

7 IJ determines that an asylum applicant has established past persecution, the 

8 applicant is presumed to have a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 

9 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). “That presumption may be rebutted” where an IJ finds 

10 that “[t]he applicant could avoid future persecution by relocating to another part 

11 of the applicant’s country . . . and under all the circumstances, it would be 

reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.” Id. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B). 12 1 Where an 

13 applicant has established past persecution, the Government has the burden to 

14 show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the applicant can safely 

15 relocate. Id. § 1208.13(b)(1)(ii). Factors affecting the reasonableness of relocation 

16 include “whether the applicant would face other serious harm in the place of 

1 Citations are to the version of the regulations in effect at the time of Singh’s 

proceedings before the agency.
4

1 suggested relocation; any ongoing civil strife within the country; administrative, 

2 economic, or judicial infrastructure; geographical limitations; and social and 

3 cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health, and social and familial ties.” Id.

4 § 1208.13(b)(3). 

5 Singh testified that members of the Congress Party attacked him twice

6 because of his membership in the SADA, and that the local police refused to accept 

7 his complaint when he tried to report the first attack. Substantial evidence 

8 supports the agency’s conclusion that Singh, who is originally from Punjab, could 

9 safely relocate to Delhi. 

10 Singh argues that the agency erred in finding that he could relocate because 

11 he testified credibly that he believed the police in Delhi would look at his ID card 

12 and notify the Congress Party, and that when he previously lived in Delhi he never 

13 went out because he felt that it was not safe. However, Singh’s subjective beliefs 

14 on these issues did not preclude the Government from demonstrating with 

15 objective evidence that Singh could safely relocate. Id. § 1208.13(b)(1)(ii). 

16 Moreover, the record contains objective evidence to support safe relocation. A 

17 Library of Congress report concluded that Sikhs from Punjab can safely relocate 

18 in India so long as the individual is not of interest to the central authorities, and 
5

1 that only high-profile militants would be at risk of persecution following 

2 relocation. See Certified Administrative Record (“CAR”) at 206–08, 211–15. 

3 Singh was not a high-ranking member in SADA. Singh was attacked by members 

4 of a political party, not government authorities or officials; he was never attacked 

5 by the police or by members of any party other than the Congress Party. See Singh 

6 v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106, 115 (2d Cir. 2021) (“An applicant’s allegation that he was 

7 persecuted by members of a political party—even one that is in power nationally 

8 or . . . is aligned with a party in power nationally—does not establish that the 

9 applicant was persecuted by the government.”). Singh agreed that the Congress 

10 Party was not in power in Delhi (a city of then more than 16 million), and there 

11 was no objective evidence that showing identification to local authorities in Delhi 

12 would provide means for Congress Party members to track him. See CAR at 211–

13 15 (Library of Congress report), 216 (population). We have considered Singh’s 

14 remaining arguments and find them without merit.

15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending 

16 motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

17 FOR THE COURT: 

18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

19 Clerk of Court