NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAVIINDER PAL SINGH BADWAL, AKA Ravi Inder Pal Singh Badwal,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 70216
Agency No. A205

- 939

- 966

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 13, 2020 * * San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and GRITZNER, ** * District Judge.
Raviinder Pal Singh Badwal (“Badwal”) seeks review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

AUG 17 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

denial o f his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review the agency’s decision under the
deferential “substantial evidence” standard, Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1012
(9th Cir. 2010), and den y the petition.
Even assuming Badwal were credible and had established past persecution on
account of his political opinion as a member of the Shir o mani Akali Dal Amritsar
Mann Party (“Mann Party”), substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that the government successfully reb utted the presumption of future
persecution by demonstrating Badwal could safely relocate internally in India and
that it would be reasonable to require him to do so. Afriyie v. Holder , 613 F.3d 924,
934 (9 th Cir. 2010), overruled on other grounds by Brin gas

- Rodriguez v. Session s , 850 F.3d 1051, 1070 (9 th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The 2014 State Department report
and other documentary evidence of record do not report any current widespread
persecution of Sikhs, nor any significant continuing police interest i n low

- to mid

level members or supporters of the Mann Party. See Singh v. Holder , 753 F.3d 826,

831

– 33 (9th Cir

. 2014).

Badwal was a self

- described low

- ranking member of the party whose
activities involved putting up posters and attending rallies. Although Badwal fears
local police from his village could use India’s tenant registration system to track his
whereabouts, there is n o record evidence that Punjab police have actually used the3

system

— designed to assist local police in combatting crime and terrorist activities

— in this manner, and Badwal admits that he does not personally know anyone in his
party who had relocated and was later tracked through this system.
The agency adequately considered Badwal’s individual circumstances and
concluded it would be reasonable for him to relocate. 8 C.F.R. § 1 2 08.13(b)(3).
Because substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the
government successfully rebutted any presumption of countrywide persecution,
Badwal’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal fail. See Melkonian v.
Ashcroft , 320 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir. 2003); Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281,
1288 (9th Ci r. 2008).
With respect to his CAT claim, substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s determination that Badwal did not bear his burden of proving it is more
likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India. Maldonado v. Lynch , 786
F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (agency must consider all relevant
evidence, including possibility of relocation within country of removal).

PETITION DENIED.