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 a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. 1 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 R AV I ND E R S I NG H S AG OO , 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 y G e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 72784 A ge nc yN o. A 70- 809- 066 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 ard o f Im m i g rat i o n A p p eal s A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r5, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: R E IN H A R D T , B E R Z O N , an d C A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R a vi nde rS i ngh S a goo pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

ade c i s i on of

the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( B I A ) a f f i rm i ng a n I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s ( I J ) de ni a l of S a goo’ s appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd r e l i e f

unde rthe 

# FI LED OC T 28 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

U ni t e d N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( C A T ) . W e gr a ntthe pe t i t i on a nd r e m a n d t o th e B I A. 1. T he B I A di d nota doptthe I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyf i ndi ng. I ns t e a d, the B I A a dopt e d the I J ’ s opi ni on j us t“ i ns of a ra s [ the I J ] f

ound tha t[ S a goo] ha d not sa t i sf i ed the bu rden of proo f f or the re qu es t ed re l i ef

. ” See A bebe v. G on zales , 432 F . 3d 10 37 , 10 40 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). I n doi ng s o, i ta gr e e d w i th the I Jonl ytha tS a goo w as “ u n ab l e t o est ab l i sh th atth e i n ci d en t s h e d escri b ed co n st i tu t ed p ast pers ec ut i on , dem on stra t ed a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on , or es t abl i shed thati tw as m ore l i kel y than n otthathe w ou l d suffe r per se cut i on or t orture. ” “W h en th e B IA ’s d ec isio n is silen t o n th e iss u e o f c re d ib il ity, d es p it e a n IJ ’s e xpl i c i ta dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng, w e m a ypr e s um e tha tthe B I A f ound the pet i t i on ert o b e c re di bl e. ” Krotova v. G on zales , 41 6 F . 3d 10 80 , 10 84 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e B I A in th is c a s e w a s e ith e rs ile n t ab o u t th e I J ’s a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility de t e rm i na t i on, or , by r e f e rr i ng t o “ the i nc i de nt s [ S a goo] de s c r i be d” w i thout que s t i oni ng w he the rthe y ha d oc c urr e d, a f f i rm a t i ve l yi ndi c a t e d tha ti tf ound S a goo cr edi bl e. E i ther w ay , w e m ustpres um e the B IA foun d S agoo cr edi bl e. 2. T he B I A ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tS a goo w a s “ unabl e t o e s t abl i s h tha tthe i nci dent s he des cr i bed con st i tut ed pastpers ec ut i on ” i s notsupp ort ed by subst ant i al e v id e n c e . See B ag hdasaryan v. H older , 5 9 2 F .3 d 1 0 1 8 , 1 0 2 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) .3

F ol l ow i ng the a s s a s s i na t i on of I ndi a n P r i m e rM i ni s t e rI ndi r aG a ndhi byS i kh body gua r ds i n 1984, a nt i - S i kh r i ot e r s be a ta nd f or c i bl ys ha ve d S a goo i n vi ol a t i on o f h is S ikh re li g io u s b eliefs , m u rd er ed h is S ikh co -w o rk er , an d b u rn ed S ag o o ’s turban o n t op of hi s c ow orker’ s l i fe l es s bod y. W e have hel d thatan un t ar get ed in c id e n t o f

p h y s ic a l v io le n c e d u r in g ap e r io d o f c iv il u n r e s t d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r ily c o m p e l af

in d in g o f p e r s e c u tio n . Se e H

o x h a v . A s h c r o

ft , 3 1 9 F .3 d 1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . H e r e , h o w e v e r , th e v io le n c e d ir e c te d a t S a g o o d u r in g th e r io t r o s e to the l e ve l of

pe r s e c ut i on be c aus e i tw a s on a c c ountof S a goo’ s r e l i gi ous be l i e f s , a nd w a s , o n th is r e c o r d , c o m m itte d b yf o r c e s th e I n d ia n g o v e rn m e n t w a s ap p a r e n tly

“ un w i l l i ng or un abl e t o con trol . ” See A f ri yi e v . H older , 61 3 F . 3d 92 4, 93 1 (9th C i r. 20 10 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). L i kew i se , S agoo ’ s 198 9 b ea t i ng by P un j abi po l i ce o f f ic e r s o n a c c o u n t o f

h is im p u te d p o litic a l o p in io n r o s e to th e le v e l o f p e r s e c u tio n . Se e A fr iy ie , 6 1 3 F .3 d a t 9 3 1 ; D uar te de G ui nac v . I . N . S. , 1 7 9 F .3 d 1 1 5 6 , 1 1 6 1 ( 9 th C i r . 1999) ( “ [ W ] e ha ve c ons i s t e nt l yf ound pe r s e c ut i on w he r e , a s he r e , the pet i t i on erw as ph ys i ca l l y harm ed [on account of ast atut ory groun d] . ”) (i nt ernal ci t at i on s om i tt ed). 3. H a vi ng de m ons tr a t e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, S a goo w a s e nt i t l e d t o a pr e s um pt i on of

aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on tha tthe gove rnm e nt c o u ld r e b u t b y ap r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . See 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 13 (b). T he IJ1 T h e B IA ’s p ar ti al ad o p ti o n o f th e I J’s d ec isio n w as li m it ed to th e I J’s

fi nd i ng thatS agoo “ had n otsa t i sf i ed the bu rden of proo f f or the re qu es t ed re l i ef

. ” B e c aus e the gove rnm e nt

— a nd notS a goo— c a rr i e d the bur de n of pr oof t o r e butthe p r e s u m p tio n o f

aw e ll- f o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n , th e B I A n e c e s s a r ilyd id n o t a d o p t th e I J ’s r e b u tta l a n a ly s is . See H o ssei n iv. G o n za les, 471 F . 3d 953, 957 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( “ [ O ] urr e vi e w i s l i m i t e d t o the B I A ’ s de c i s i on, e xc e ptt o the e xt e nt the I J ’ s opi ni on i s e xpr e s s l y a dopt e d. ” ) ( i nt e rna l c i t a t i ons a nd quot a t i on m a rks om i tt ed). 4 c onduc t e d thi s a na l y s i s , butthe B I A di d not , c onc l udi ng onl ytha tS a goo ha d not e s tab lis h e d p a s t p e r s e c u tio n o raw e ll- f o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n .1 T h is w a s e rr or . O n r e m a nd, the B I A s houl d c ons i de rw he the rthe gove rnm e ntc a n r e but S a goo’ s pr e s um e d w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on by de m ons tr a t i ng a f u n d a m e n ta l c h an g e in c o u n try c o n d itio n s . See general l y Kam al yan v. H older , -- - F . 3d -- -- , 20 10 W L 33 25 84 0, at*4 (9th C i r. A ug . 25 , 20 10 ). 4. S a goo doe s notqua l i f yf orr e l i e f unde rC A T be c aus e he ha s not pr ove d tha the i s m or e l i ke l y tha n notgoi ng t o be t ortur e d “ byora tthe i ns t i ga t i on o f o rw ith th e c o n s e n t o ra c q u ie s c e n c e o f ap u b lic o f

f ic ia l o ro th e rp e r s o n a c tin g in a n o f f ic ia l c ap a c ity .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 8 ( a ) ( i) ; A den v. H older , 589 F . 3d 1040, 10 47 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). B ecau se th e B IA erred i n co n cl u d i n g th atS ag o o h ad n o tsu ffered p ast pers ec ut i on , w e r em and for the B IA t o d et erm i ne w hether the go vernm entcan r e b u t th e p r e s u m p tio n th a t S a g o o h a s aw e ll- f o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n .5

GR AN T E D I N P AR T AN D R E MAND E D.