2 1

- 6269 Singh v. Garland BIA Golovnin , IJ A 216 385 102 

### 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 1 Circuit, held at the Thu rgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 2 Square, in the City of New York, on the 1 2 t h da y of M a y , two thousand twenty

3 t hree

. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 7 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 8 SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, 9 Circuit Judges. 10

_____________________________________ 11 12 JAI SINGH , 13 Petitioner , 14 15

v. 2 1

- 6269 16 NAC 17 MERRICK B. GARLAND , UNITED 18 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 Respondent

. 20

_____________________________________ 21 22 232 FOR PETITIONER : Anas J. Ahmed , Esq., Pannun the Firm, P.C., 1 Jackson Heights , NY

. 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton , Acting Assistant Attorney 4 General ; Daniel E. Goldman , Senior Litigation 5 Counsel , Todd J. Cochran , Trial Attorney , 6 Office of Immigration Litigation, United 7 States Department of Justice, Washington, 8 D C. 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 10
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 11
DECREED that the petitio n for review is DENIED

. 12

Petitioner Jai Singh , a native and citizen of India , seeks review of a n Ap ril 13

1 3 , 202 1 , decision of the BIA affirming a December 6 , 20 1 8 , decision of an 14
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 15
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. In re Jai Singh , No. A 216 385 102 16
(B.I.A. Apr. 1 3 , 202 1 ), aff’g No. A 216 385 102 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 6 , 20 1 8 ). 17
We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 18
history. 19
We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan 20

Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s legal 21
conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Y.C. v. 223 Holder , 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are 1
conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to con clude to 2
the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 3
Singh challenges the agency’s conclusion that he could safely relocate 4

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

for the Shiromani Akali Dal Mann Amritsar Party (“SADA”)

. Where, as here, an 6
IJ determines that an asylum applicant has established past persecution, the 7
applicant is presumed t o have a well

- founded fear of future persecution. See 8

8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). “Th at presumption may be rebutted” where an IJ finds 9
that “[t]he applicant could avoid future persecution by relocating to another part 10
of the applicant’s country . . . and u nder all the circumstances, it would be 11
reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.” Id. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B). 1 Where an 12
applicant has established past persecution, the Government has the burden to 13
show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the applicant can safely 14

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

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

1 Citations are to the version of the regulations in effect at the time of Singh’s proceedings before the agency.4 suggested relocation; any ongoing civil strife within the country; administrative, 1
economic, or judicial infrastructure; geographical limitations; and social and 2

cultural constraints, suc h as age, gender, health, and social and familial ties.” Id. 3
§ 1208.13(b)(3). 4
Singh testified that members of the Congress Party attacked him twice 5
because of his membership in the SADA, and that the local police refused to accept 6
his complaint when h e tried to report the first attack . Substantial evidence 7
supports the agency’s conclusion that Singh , who is originally from Punjab, could 8
safely relocate to Delhi

. 9
Singh argues that the agency erred in finding that he could relocate because 10
he testified credibly that he believed the police in Delhi would look at his ID card 11
and notify the Congress Party, and that when he previously lived in Delhi he never 12

went out because he felt that it was not safe. However, Singh ’s subjective beliefs 13
on these issues did not preclude the Government from demonstrating with 14
objective evidence that Singh could safely relocate. Id. § 1208.13(b)(1)(ii). 15
Moreover, the record contains objective evidence to support safe r elocation. A 16
Library of Congress report concluded that Sikhs from Punjab can safely relocate 17
in India so long as the individual is not of interest to the central authorities , and 185 that only high

- profile militants would be at risk of persecution following 1

r elocation

. See Certified Administrative Record (“CAR”) at 206

– 08, 211

– 15. 2
Singh was not a high

- ranking member in SADA. Singh was attacked by members 3
of a political party, not government authorities or officials ; he was never attacked 4
by the police or by members of any party other than the Congress Party. See Singh 5

v. Garland , 11 F.4th 106, 115 (2d Cir. 2021) (“ An applicant’s allegation that he was 6
persecuted by members of a political party

— even one that is in po wer nationally 7
or . . . is aligned with a party in power nationally

— does not establish that the 8
applicant was persecuted by the government.” ). Singh agreed that the Congress 9
Party was not in power in Delhi (a city of then more than 16 million) , and there 10
was no objective evidence that showing identification to local authorities in Delhi 11
would provide means for Congress Party members to track him. See CAR at 211

– 12
15 (Library of Congress report) , 216 (population )

. We have considered Singh’s 13
remaining argume nts and find them without merit. 14
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED

. All pending 15
motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED. 16

FOR THE COURT: 17 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 18 Clerk of Court 19