NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GAGANDEEP SINGH, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting 

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-73058 

Agency No. A098-456-594 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted November 15, 2018

San Francisco, California

Before: GRABER, THACKER,** and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Gagandeep Singh petitions for review of a decision of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen his removal 

proceedings to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 

Convention Against Torture. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Stephanie Dawn Thacker, Circuit Judge for the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting by designation.

FILED

DEC 4 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

for abuse of discretion. Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002). Under 

this standard, “[t]he decision of the BIA should be left undisturbed unless it is 

‘arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.’” He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1131 

(9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Singh, 295 F.3d at 1039). We deny the petition. 

Singh filed his motion to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), which 

requires the movant to demonstrate changed country conditions by presenting 

evidence that is “material and was not available and could not have been 

discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” Singh argued that, due to 

changes in India since his 2010 removal proceedings, he fears persecution based on 

his own religious and political beliefs, his marriage to an African-American 

Christian woman, and his biracial and dual-faith son. 

Singh, a native and citizen of India, is a Sikh and has been a supporter of the 

Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar party, also known as the “Mann Party,” since 

around 2002. The Mann Party supports the establishment of a separate Sikh state. 

Singh claimed that Indian authorities had increased their monitoring of Sikh 

separatists outside India due to certain events that occurred in India in 2015. 

The BIA considered Singh’s arguments and evidence. The BIA’s decision 

referenced the evidence submitted by Singh regarding the treatment of Sikh 

separatists, including his affidavit and articles stating that Indian authorities had 

increased their monitoring of Sikh separatists outside of India. The BIA also 
3 

concluded that some of the evidence was previously available and could have been 

presented during Singh’s 2010 removal proceedings. 

The BIA also considered the evidence submitted by Singh relating to the 

treatment of Christians and individuals of African descent in India. The BIA 

concluded that the evidence was “very limited” and that some of the evidence 

actually supported a conclusion that there had been no changed country conditions 

regarding the treatment of Christians in India. Accordingly, the BIA held that 

Singh failed to demonstrate materially changed country conditions based on his 

marriage to an African-American Christian woman and his biracial and dual-faith 

son. 

Based on our review of the record,

1

the BIA did not abuse its discretion in 

concluding that the evidence submitted by Singh failed to show a material change 

in country conditions.

Petition DENIED.

 

1 We accept as true the facts stated in Singh’s affidavit as the BIA made no 

determination that the facts alleged in his affidavit are inherently unbelievable. 

Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 2007).