This disposit ion is not appropriate f or publication and is not pre cedent except as * provided by

9th Cir. R. 36-3. The Honorable Patric ia C. Fa wsett, Senior United States District Judge f or the ** Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

1 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T
SA TN A M K A U R, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t,
v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto r n e y G e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 75161 A ge nc y N o. A 97 126 084
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 A r gue d a nd S ubm i t t e d M a y 14, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o r n ia Be f o r e : HU G a n d M c Ke o wn , Ci r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n d FAW SE TT , S eni or D i stri ct ** Judg e. S a t na m K a ur , a c i t i z e n of I ndi a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the de c i s i on of

t he Bo a r d o f

I mmi g r a t i o n A p p e a l s ( “ BI A ” ) de ny i ng h e ra p p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, 

# FI LED
JU N 09 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSThe pa rties do not dispute that the alleg ed per secution wa s committed by the 1 g overnme nt, mainly

the Indian police. 2 w i t hh ol di ng of re m ov al , and p rot ec ti o n u n der the C on vent i on A gai nstT orture ( “ C A T ” )
. W e gr a nt t h e pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w a s t o t he a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of
r e m o v a l c la im s a n d r e m a n d th e s e c la im s to th e a g e n c y f o rf u r th e r p r o c e e d i n g s . W e d e n y th e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w o f

th e C A T c la im
. T h e B IA ’ s d et erm i n at i o n th atK au r d i d n o tsu ffer h arm sev e r e e n o u g h t o ri se t o t he l e ve l of

pe r s e c ut i o n i s nots uppor t e d by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . A n a ppl i c a nt al l egi ng past pers ec ut i on has the bu rden of es t abl i shi ng that : “ (1) [ her] tre atm entri se s t o t he l evel of pers ec ut i on ; (2) the pers ec ut i on w as on ac coun tof o n e or m ore pr ot e c t e d gr ounds ; a nd ( 3) t he pe r s e c ut i on w a s c om m i t t ed by the gove r nm e nt , orby f o r c e s th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t w a s u n a b le o ru n w illin g to c o n tr o l.” B a gh da sary an v. 1 H older , 592 F
. 3d 1018, 1023 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( c i t i ng Ch a n d v . I NS , 222 F
. 3d 1066, 10 73 (9t h C i r. 20 00 ))
. K aur’ s c re di bl e, un cont rovert ed t es t i m on y e st abl i shes t hat
w hi l e s he w as det ai ned a nd qu es t i on ed by the Indi an po l i ce for tw o d ay s, she s uffe re d t w o separ at e, se vere beat i ng s thatnece ss it at ed prol on ged recupera t i on and m edi ca l t re atm ent . T he po l i ce t oo k K aur t o the po l i ce st at i on w here they s l apped h er , pu l l ed her hai r, hi ther on t he sol es of her fe etand l egs w i th a st i ck, and h i ther on t he back and feet w it h a l ea ther s trap. T he fi rs tbeat i ng concl ud ed w hen K aur w as kn ocked
un consci ou s by a b lo w t o t he head w i th an u nk no w n o bj ec t . W hen she regai nedKaur ’s unre futed testimony was c orroborated by

the af fidavit of her

brother- in-law 2 who desc ribed he r beating a s “brutal.” 3 consci ou snes s thatni gh t , she w as agai n b ea t en i n a si m i l arm anner by the Indi an po l i ce . K a ur w a s r e l e a s e d f r om j a i l the ne xt da y a f

t e r a f a m i l y m e m be rpa i d a 70, 000 2
rupe e b ri b e. U na bl e t o ga i n a dm i s s i on t o a hos pi t a l , K a urr e c e i ve d tw o w e e ks of
m edi ca l t re atm entfor heri nj uri es fr om a m edi ca l do ct or and s pent an addi t i on al t hree
w e e ks r e c upe r a t i ng a the rhom e be f or e s he w a s a bl e t o r e tur n t o w or k. A f t e rl e a r ni ng t ha tt he I ndi a n pol i c e w e r e a ga i n l ooki ng f or he r a tbot h he rw or k a nd he rhom e , K a ur
w enti nt o h i d in g fo r ov ertw o m on ths un t i l , throu gh the ef fort s of a fa m i l y m em ber, she w as a bl e t o l e a ve I nd i a . A t t he t i me of K a ur ’ s me r i t s he a r i ng , ov e r thr e e y ea rs
a f t e rhe rde t e nt i on a nd be a t i ngs , the I ndi a n pol i c e w e r e s t i l l co n t i nui ng t o s e a r c h f or he r . T hi s undi s put e d e vi de nc e c om pe l s a r e a s ona bl e f a c tf i nde rt o c onc l ude tha tK a ur
w a s s u b je c te d to tr e a tm e n t r is in g to th e le v e l o f p e r s e c u tio n . S e e G u o v . A s h c r o ft , 361 F .3 d 1 1 9 4 , 1 2 0 2
- 0 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ; D u a r t e d e G u i n a c v . I NS , 179 F
. 3d 1156, 1161 (9t h C i r. 19 99 ). H a vi ng e s t a bl i s he d t r e a t m e ntr i s i ng t o the l e ve l of pe r s e c ut i on, K a urm us tne xt d em o n s tr a te t h atth e p ersecu t i o n w as o n a c c o u n t o f race, rel i g i o n , n at i o n al i t y,
m e m b e r s h ip in a p a r tic u la rs o c ia l g r o u p , o rp o litic a l o p in io n . B aghdas ar y an , 592 F
. 3d at10 23 (i nt er nal ci t at i on om i t t ed). T he B IA det er m i nat i on thatthe Indi an aut ho ri t i es
w e r e i nt e r e s t e d i n K a uronl y t o the e xt e nttha t the y s ought t o e l i c i t i nf or m a t i on a bout4

he rf r i e nd a nd t o i nve s t i ga t e K a ur ’ s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n i l l e ga l a c t i vi ty i s nots uppor t e d by subst ant i al evi dence. K aur’ s c re di bi l i ty w as no t as sa i l ed. H ert es t i m on y e st abl i shed t ha t dur i n g h e r i n t e r r o g a t i o n s a n d b e a t i n g s , th e p o l i c e a c c u s e d h e r s e v e r a l t i me s of be i ng a K ha l i s t a ni a nd r e pe a t e dl y a s ke d he r a boutthe i de nt i t i e s of the K ha l i s t a ni s w ho had v i si t ed he r, w i th w hi ch K hal i st ani s s he w as as soci at ed, and w here such K hal i st ani s w er e l ocat ed. T hese st at em ent s c on st i tut e unm i st akabl e c i rc um st ant i al evi dence thatt he po l i ce w er e m ot i vat ed, atl ea st in p art , by an i m pu t ed po l i t i ca l
o p in io n . See G a

f o o rv . I NS , 2 3 1 F .3 d 6 4 5 , 6 5 1
- 5 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ; Ya z i t c h i a n v . I NS , 207 F
. 3d 1164, 1167- 68 ( 9t h C i r . 2000)
. N o r e a s ona bl e f a c tf i nde rc oul d ha ve f

ound ot herw i se . A cc ordi ng l y, the re cord com pel s a fi nd i ng of pastpers ec ut i on w hi ch t hen t r i gge r s a pr e s um pt i on t ha ta pe t i t i one r ha s a w e l l
- f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on. M a m o u z ia n v . A s h c r o

ft , 3 9 0 F .3 d 1 1 2 9 , 1 1 3 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 )
. T he go vernm entca n rebutt hi s pre sum pt i on b y pres ent i ng evi dence that cond i t i on s have c hang ed or t hatre l ocat i on i s p ossi bl e so thatthe pet i t i on erno l on ger has a w el l -f

ou nd ed fe ar th at she w ou l d b e per se cut ed i f s he w er e t o return t o Ind i a. 8 C. F. R. § 2 08
. 13 ( b) ( 1)
. I n l i gh tof i t s f i nd i ng w i th r e s pe c tt o p e r s e c ut i on , the B IA d i d n o t co n si d er th e p resu m p t i o n o r w h et h er th e g o v ern m en t h ad reb u tte d it. W e t he r e f or e r e m a nd i n or de rt o pr ovi d e t h e B I A w i th the “ oppor tuni ty t o a ddr e s s t he
m att er i n the fi rs t i nst ance i n l i gh t of i t s ow n exp er t i se . ” See IN S v. O rla n d o V

en t u ra ,5

5 3 7 U .S . 1 2 , 1 7
- 1 8 ( 2 0 0 2 )
. S in c e th e r e c o r d c o m p e ls a f in d in g o f p a s t p e r s e c u tio n , K a u ra ls o is e n title d to
a p r e s u m p tio n o f e lig ib ility f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. Mou sa v. M

ukasey , 530 F
. 3d 1025, 1030 ( 9t h C i r . 2008) ( c i t i ng s t a nda r d)
. T hi s pr e s um pt i on m a y be r e but t e d i f the g o v e r n m e n t s h o w s a f

u n d a m e n ta l c h a n g e in c ir c u m s ta n c e s o rs h o w s th a t K a u rc o u ld
r e a s o n a b ly r e lo c a te w ith in I n d ia
. Id
. B e c a us e the B I A de t e r m i ne d tha tK a urdi d not suff erpastpers ec ut i on , the B IA nei th er ap p li ed t hi s pre sum pt i on no r c on si dere d
w he t he ri tha d be e n r e but t e d by t he gove r nm e nt . T hus w e r e m a nd the w i thhol di ng of re m ov al cl ai m t o t he B IA “ so thatthe [B IA ] m ay appl y the l aw t o the fa ct s” of her
w ith h o ld in g c la im a n d d e te r m in e if th e g o v e r n m e n t m e t its r e b u tta l b u r d e n . Si laya v. Mukasey , 524 F
. 3d 1066, 1072 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( i nt e r na l c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i on m a r ks
o m itte d )
. W e d eny K aur’ s pet i t i on for r el i ef un der C A T beca use s he has notdem on stra t ed th at i t i s m o re l i k el y th an n o t th at sh e w i l l b e t o rtu red u p o n h er retu rn t o I n d ia
. See,
e. g. , Si ng h v. G on zal es , 4 3 9 F .3 d 1 1 0 0 , 1 1 1 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 )
. C on c l u s i on T he pe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w a s t o the B I A ’ s di s m i s s a l of K a ur ’ s c l a i m s f

or asyl u m an d w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al i s G R A N TED , an d t h e case i s R EM A N D ED for f urt her procee di ng s i n acc ordance w i th t hi s opi ni on . T he pet i t i on for r evi ew as6

t o t h e B IA ’ s d i sm i ssal o f K au r’ s cl ai m fo r rel i ef u n d er t h e C o n v en t i o n A g ai n st T o rtu re i s D EN I ED . C o s ts o n a p p e a l a r e a w a r d e d to th e p e titio n e r . PETI TI O N G R A N TED I N PA R T, R EM A N D ED a nd D EN I ED I N PA R T