2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
12-15-2004 

# B a jwa v . Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-3598

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" B a jw a v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 79. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/79NOT PRE CEDENT IAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

NO. 03-3598
JA TI NDE R S I NGH B AJ WA

Petitioner

v. JOHN AS HCROFT , A TTORNE Y GENERAL

Respondent

On Petition for R eview of an Ord er of th e Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals A95-820-054

Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

December 13, 2004 BE FO RE : AM BR O, V AN AN TW ER PE N a nd S TA PL ET ON , Circuit Judges (Opinion Fi led December 15, 2004)

OPINI ON OF THE COURT2

ST AP LE TO N, Circuit

Judge :
Petitioner J atinde r Bajwa is a Punj abi speaki ng member of the Sikh fa ith fr om India. He sought asylum from alleged persecution on the basis of hi s religi ous beliefs, socialgrouping, and polit ical acti viti es. He als o sought withholding of removal and rel ief under the Convention Against Torture. After four day s of heari ng, al l rel ief was deni ed by th e I J. Thi s d ec is io n wa s a ff irmed by th e BI A. Petitioner s ubmitt ed evidence t hat he was arrested and be aten i n India on t hree occasions , the firs t in 1997, the second on November 25, 2000, and the third on March 26, 2002. The I J found based on subs tanti al evi dence that the fi rst arrest

was the res ult of a land di spute between petitioner, his fat her and his uncle and that the second arr est was the res ult of a nother pr opertydisput e. Accordi ngly , the IJ concl uded that petit ioner had fail ed to est ablis h that t hese arr ests a nd beati ngs occurr ed on account of one of the fi ve enumerated gr ounds found in 8 U.S. C. § 1101(a)( 42). We cannot fault t his concl usion. The IJ obser ved that

the cl osest pe titioner ca me to establis hing pers ecuti on on an
enu me rated gro und – po litical opi nio n – w as h is tes timo ny co nce rnin g th e thir d ar rest. Petitioner testi fied that he was arrested bypolice because of hi s membership i n Akali Dal M ann , a Si kh s epa ratist o rga niza tion , and that p arty pa mp hlets we re tak en f rom him
. However, the IJdid not credit t his t esti mony and note d that t here was no corr oborati ng evidence of any

arres t or i njuryin 2002, de spit e the fact that t he record wit

h respect to the first two arrests dem onstrated that such corrobora tion was re adily available. The reco rd3

does not compel a conclusion contrary to t hat reached here by the IJ. The IJ ultimatelyconcluded as follows: In allthe Court f

inds l ittle evi dence to sugge st that the government or any one in Indi a has the i nclination t o persecute the re spondent on account of any

of the grounds enumerated i n the Act. The respondent has not sustained h is burden o f proof in establishing past pe rsecution, nor a well-founde d fear of per secuti on on account of hi s poli tica l opini on or membership i n a parti cular s ocial group, t hat bei ng a member of the Sikh co m m un ity. In conclus ion thi s Court fi nds that the res pondent has not

establ ished that he suffered per secuti on, nor has he demonstrated a well- founded fear of persecution on account

of one of the fi ve protec ted grounds . That bei ng the cas e the resp ond ent h as f ailed to m eet h is bu rde n of pro of a nd p ersu asio n. In addition, t

his Court must necess aril y denythe res pondent’s request for withholding of removal and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture, which require a more stringent e videnti ary burden. App. at 48-49. Th ese con clus ion s are sup por ted b y subs tanti al ev iden ce a nd a re leg ally sou nd. Acc or di ngl y , w e wi llde ny th e p et it io n f orre vi ew.