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 by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

E ri c H . H ol der, Jr . i s the curr entA tt orney G ener al of the U ni t ed * * S t at es . F ed. R . A pp . P . 43 (c )( 2).

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y f i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** * oral ar gu m ent . S ee F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H onor abl e K e vi n T hom a s D uf f y , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f or ** * * the S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof N e w Y ork, s i tt i ng by de 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 F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT AMR I K S I NG H, P et i t i on er , v. A LBERTO R. G O N ZA LES, * * A tto rn e y G e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 05- 75049 A ge nc y N o. A 72- 012- 899 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 d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r4, 2009 * ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B e f o r e : NO ON AN a n d W. F L E T C HE R , C i r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n d DU F F Y, D i stri ct *** * Judg e. 

# FI LED NO V 19 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

A m r i k S i ngh pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

a n or de rof

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) r e ve r s i ng the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) gr a ntof de f e rr a l of r e m ova l unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT or tur e ( “ C A T ” ) a nd or de r i ng S i ngh r e m ove d t o I ndi a . S i ngh c ont e nds tha tthe B I A e rr e d i n s us t a i ni ng the gove rnm e nt ’ s appe a l a nd r e ve r s i ng the I J ’ s gr a ntof de f e rr a l of r e m ova l unde rthe C A T , because S i ng h m ethi s burden o f provi ng thati tw as m ore l i kel y than n otthat he w ou l d b e t ortured i f r eturned t o Ind i a. T hi s c our tha s j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de ni a l of S i ngh’ s r e que s tf

or de f e rr a l of r e m ova l unde rthe C A T . S e e B r om f i e l d v. M uka s e y , 543 F . 3d 1071, 10 74 –7 6 (9th C i r. 20 08 ); M oral es v. G on za l es , 47 8 F . 3d 97 2, 98 0– 81 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) . W e r e vi e w que s t i ons of l a w de novo, i nc l udi ng the que s t i on of w he the rthe B IA ap p l i ed th e co rrectl eg al st an d ard t o th e IJ’ s factu al fi n d i n g s. S ee M o ral es, 4 7 8 F .3 d a t 9 8 3 ; A r te a g av . M u k a s e y , 5 1 1 F .3 d 9 4 0 , 9 4 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . H er e th e B IA u se d th e c o rr ec t stan d ar d o f r ev iew in re v er sin g th e I J’s deci si on t o g rantdefe rr al of re m ov al un der the C A T . S peci fi ca l l y, the B IA ac ce pt ed the IJ ’ s f

i nd i ng s of f

ac tand con du ct ed a de nov o revi ew of the IJ ’ s l egal de c i s i on ba s e d on thos e f i ndi ngs . D e novo r e vi e w i s appr opr i a t e w he n, a s he r e , the q u est i o n p resen t ed i s a m i x ed q u est i o n o f l aw an d fact . S ee R am ad an v . G o n zal es,3

479 F . 3d 646, 654 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ; 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 1( d) ( 3) ( i i ) . B a s e d on ade novo r e vi e w of

the r e c or d, the B I A r e ve r s e d the I J ’ s or de rgr a nt i ng S i ngh ade f e rr a l of r e m ova l unde rthe C A T . T he B I A a c t e d w i thi n i t s author i ty w he n i tde ni e d S i ngh r e l i e f u n d e rth e CAT. W e r ev iew fo r s u b stan ti al ev id en ce th e f ac tu al fin d in g s u n d er lyin g th e B IA ’s det erm i nat i on thatS i ng h w as no tel i gi bl e f or re l i ef un der the C A T . S ee A rt ea ga, 5 1 1 F . 3 d at9 4 4 . H ere, th e B IA ack n o w l ed g ed S i n g h ’ s t est i m o n y ab o u tp ast pe r s e c ut i on. H ow e ve r , s uc h e vi de nc e i s onl y one f a c t ori n a s s e s s i ng w he the rS i ngh w i l l l i kel y be t ortured i n Ind i a i n the future. S ee 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 16 (c )( 3). T he B IA a l s o r e c ogni z e d tha tthe c ountry c ondi t i ons ( a nd the hum a n r i ght s s i tua t i on) i n the P u n j ab h a v e s u b s t a n t i a l l y i m p r o v e d s i n c e th e m i d - 1 9 9 0 s a n d th a tS i k h s a r e n o w a w el l -r es pect ed and p ow er ful m i no ri ty group i n Ind i a. L aw and o rderi n the P un j ab a r e e s s e nt i a l l y norm a l , a s m i l i t a ry - r e l a t e d abus e s ha ve s i gni f i c a nt l y de c r e a s e d; p o lic e a r e n o w b e in g h e ld a c c o u n tab le f o rth e s e ab u s e s ; a n d in d iv id u a ls p r e v io u s ly in v o lv e d in m ilita n c y a r e r e tu rn in g to I n d iao re m e r g in g f r o m th e u n d e r g r o u n d . S e e K a m a l tha s v. I N S , 251 F . 3d 1279, 1283 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( “ [ C ] ountry c ondi t i ons al on e c an pl aya dec i si ve rol e i n g rant i ng re l i ef un der the [C A T ] . ”) . F ur the rm or e , the B I A a l s o poi nt e d outtha tS i ngh’ s br othe rw orks f orthe gove rnm e nti n I ndi aa nd hi s s i s t e r s a r e t e a c he r s the r e , a l l appa r e nt l y w i thout4

ha r a s s m e nt ; tha tS i ngh i s onl y m i ni m a l l y a c t i ve w i th S i kh gr oups ; a nd tha tS i ngh ha s ne ve rbe e n bapt i z e d a s aS i kh, ha s c uthi s ha i r , a nd doe s notw e a raturba n. A f t e rw e i ghi ng the e vi de nc e , the B I A pr ope r l y de t e rm i ne d, ba s e d on a thor ough r e vi e w of

S i ngh’ s t e s t i m ony a nd e vi de nt i a ry s ubm i s s i ons , tha tS i ngh f a i l e d t o m e e thi s bur de n of pr ovi ng tha the w oul d m or e l i ke l y tha n notbe subj ec t ed t o t orture i f he w er e r em ov ed t o Ind i a. C on se qu ent l y, w e c on cl ud e that the B I A ’ s or de rr e ve r s i ng the I J ’ s de c i s i on t o gr a ntde f e rr a l of r e m ova l unde rthe C A T i s s up po rt ed by subst ant i al evi dence. P e t i t i o n DE NI E D.