20-1754

Singh v. Garland

BIA

Thompson, IJ

A205 935 828

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION 

TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED 

AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS 

COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT 

FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX 

OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A 

PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY 

NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 

United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 22nd day of November, two thousand twentytwo.

PRESENT:

GERARD E. LYNCH,

RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

STEVEN J. MENASHI,

Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________

LOVEJEET SINGH,

Petitioner,

v. 20-1754

NAC

MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

_____________________________________

FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Esq., Jackson 

Heights, NY.

FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant

Attorney General; Linda S. 
2

Wernery, Assistant Director; Susan 

Bennett Green, Senior Litigation 

Counsel, Office of Immigration 

Litigation, United States 

Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 

is DENIED.

Petitioner Lovejeet Singh, a native and citizen of India,

seeks review of a May 18, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming 

a June 5, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 

denying Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 

(“CAT”). In re Lovejeet Singh, No. A205 935 828 (B.I.A. May 

18, 2020), aff’g No. A205 935 828 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June

5, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

underlying facts and procedural history.

We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 

BIA, and address only the grounds that the BIA relied on. 

See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 

(2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 

established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he
3

administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 

contrary.”); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d 

Cir. 2009) (reviewing factual findings for substantial 

evidence and questions of law and application of law to facts 

de novo). 

Singh alleged past persecution by members of the Congress 

Party on account of his support for the Shiromani Akali Dal 

Mann Party (“Mann Party”) and his Sikh faith. Because the 

BIA assumed credibility and past persecution, Singh was 

entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future 

persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). However, that 

presumption may be rebutted where a preponderance of the 

evidence demonstrates that circumstances have fundamentally 

changed. Id. § 1208.13(b)(1)(ii). The changed 

circumstances must “obviate the risk to life or freedom 

related to the original claim.” Kone v. Holder, 596 F.3d 

141, 148–49 (2d Cir. 2010). When assessing whether there has 

been such a change in the country of removal, the IJ should 

undertake an individualized analysis and consider the most 

recent U.S. State Department report and other evidence 
4

submitted by the applicant. See Passi v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 

98, 101–03 (2d Cir. 2008) (remanding based on “cursory 

treatment” of issue where agency ignored evidence favorable 

to applicant). 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion 

that conditions have changed such that Singh no longer has a 

well-founded fear of persecution from the Congress Party. 

The 2017 State Department Report for India establishes that 

the Congress Party is no longer in power nationally and it 

does not reflect ongoing violence between supporters of the 

Congress Party and Singh’s party. The country conditions 

evidence otherwise discusses the treatment of opposition 

political parties in Punjab, which is not Singh’s home state, 

predates the 2014 election, or fails to describe ongoing 

violence. The evidence indicates there are over 16 million 

Sikhs living in India and as of 2013, the Sikh population 

faced “little discrimination” across India. On this record, 

the agency did not err in finding that Singh no longer had a 

well-founded fear of future persecution from Congress Party 

members. See Kone, 593 F.3d at 149 (presumption of wellfounded fear is rebutted where preponderance of the evidence 
5

shows “changed conditions obviate the risk to life or freedom 

related to the original claim”). The agency did not err in 

denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection 

because all three claims were based on the same factual 

predicate. See Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 115–16, 119–

20 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that where record does not 

demonstrate chance of persecution required for asylum, it 

“necessarily fails to demonstrate” the likelihood of harm for 

withholding of removal and CAT relief). For the same reason, 

Singh’s pattern or practice argument fails. He asserts that 

he demonstrated a pattern or practice of persecution of 

similarly situated individuals. However, as discussed above, 

the more recent country conditions evidence does not reflect 

persecution of Mann Party members and Sikhs by the Congress 

Party. To the extent he asserts a pattern or practice of 

persecution from other groups, as the Government noted, he 

did not exhaust that claim before the agency. See Lin Zhong 

v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 123 (2d Cir. 2007) 

(holding that “usually . . . issues not raised to the BIA 

will not be examined by the reviewing court”).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 
6

DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 

stays VACATED.

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

Clerk of Court