T h e c a p tio n r e fer s to th e p et iti o n er as “B ik ra m jee t S in g h,” 1 b u t S in g h te sti fie d t h a t h is c o rr ec t fir st n a m e i s “ B ik ra m .” (R . at27 3 .) 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 2424 B IKRAMJEET S I NGH, al so known as V I K RA M S I NGH, P etitio ner, v.
E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er of the B o ard of Immigration App eals

. No . A 075 309 330
A RGUED J AN UA RY 25, 2013

— D ECI DE D J UNE 21, 2013

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd B AU ER an d K ANN E , C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . In 199 6, Bi kr am S i ngh cam e t o 1 the Unite d States

. H e had fl ed I nd i a t o esca pe pol i ce2 N o. 12

- 2424 offi cer s a l l ege dlytr yi ng t o kil lhi m . A fterS i ngh had l i ved i n t h is countryf oro verthi rt een y ear s, an I m m i gr at i o n J u d g e ( “ IJ ” ) de n i e d S i n g h ’ s r e q u e s t s f o r a s y l u m, wi th h o l d i n go fr e mo v a l, a n d r e l i e fu n d e r th e Co nv en ti on Again st Torture. S i ngh appeal ed thi s deci si on t o th e B oa r d o f I m m igrati on A p p eals ( “B I A ”), w hich affi rm ed. S i ngh subse quentl y pet i ti oned thi s co urt f or r ev i ew. Al th o ug h we fi nd the a g en cy ’ s co nc l us i o ns about past per secuti on probl em ati c, we agr ee that Si ngh do es no t ha ve a wel l

- f o unde d fea r o ffutur e per se cut i o n. Ac c o r d i n g l y, we d e n y h i s p e t i t i o n fo r r e v i e w.

I. B ACK GR OUN D This case ’ s co m ple x proce du ra lhi sto ryi nvol ves a v a c a t e d i n a b s e nt i a ord er, a c ha ng e o fv enue , a nd the vo l unt ar y di smi ss alofa n a ppl i ca ti o n fo r pe r m an en t re sid en c y. T h es e d et ails , h o w e v er , d o n otbe ar on th is appeal

. Thus, we begin si m plybym enti oni ng tha t o n D ec em b er15 , 19 97, Bi kr am S i ngh w as sent a N oti ce t o A pp eari n re m ova lpro ceedi ngs. (R. at27
. ) The not i ce charg ed Singh w i th be i n g subj ect to re m ova l“a s a n al i en prese nt i n the U ni ted S ta te s w i thout bei ng adm i tte d or paro l ed. ” ( Id. ) Sin gh co n fes se d to th e c h ar ge s, ( i d. at 174), but so ught t o prev en t hi s depor tat i on byapply i ng f or asy l um on acco unt of hi s re l i gi on and pol i tica l o pini ons, ( id. at 313)
. S i ngh al so appli ed f orwithhol ding ofr em ova l a nd p r o t e c t i o n un de r the Co nv e nt i o n Ag a i ns tT o r t ure. ( Id. a t 30 9- 19
. ) Af te r ho l di nga n a d m i ni st r at i ve he ar i ng on S eptem ber23 , 20 09, IJ Crai g Zerbe deni ed re l i efo n all gr ou n d s. ( Id. at40 -41 .)N o. 12

- 2424 3 T h e IJ d et aile d se ve ra l f a c t -sp ec ific re as on s fo r h is deci si on. W e there f or e r eco unt the re l evantdetai l s o f Si ngh’s te stim on y that the IJ f ound credibl e. In 199 4, w h en Sin gh w as fou rt ee n ye ar s o ld an d li v i n g w ith h is fam i l y in I nd i a’ s s tat e o fPunj ab, he witnesse d a di stu rbing even t. O ne even ing, w hile w atering h is f am il y’s fi el ds, S i ngh saw pol i ce offi cer s dri ve up , dragtwo m en of u n kn ow n id en tit ies int o th e fie ld , a n d k ill th em . ( Id. at2 60

- 62
. ) Rea li zingtha t S i ngh h ad wi tn es se d the m urders , the pol i ce s ei zed S i ngh and too k hi m i nto custo d y. ( Id. at 262 .) T w o da ys later, how ever, Sing h’s fam ily c on vin c ed t h e p olic e t o re lea se h im . ( Id. ) The po l i ce di d no t ha r m S i ngh dur i ngthi s det en ti o n. A fterthe ar re st, S i ngh and hi s f am i l y c onti nued ab o utthe i r l i ve s. S i ngh’ s f athe r r emai ne d a ct i ve i n the A kal iD al, a pol i ti calp ar ty known to advoca te f oran i nd ep en d en t S ikh st at e. ( Id. at 258. ) S i ngh hi m sel fhad not offi ci al l y j oi n ed the A kal iDal, but he co l l ecte d funds f or t h e p a r t y. ( Id. at 259. ) S i ngh’s f atherwas al so acti ve in anothe r Sikh p ol i ti calo rg ani zati on, the A l l

- I nd i a S i kh St u d en t F ed er at ion (“A ISSF ”). ( Id. a t 2 76 .) Sin gh co u ld not j oi n thi s g ro up ei ther

— h e w as to o yo u n g. ( Id. ) N everthel ess , S i ng h h el ped the A I SS F b y s er vi ng be ver age s to m em ber s a t m eet i ngs a nd go i ng d oo r-t o- doorto pro m ot e t h e o rg an iza tio n . ( Id. at27 8.) A t the ti m e, thes e S i kh o rg ani zati ons w er e unpopular am o ngmany no n- S i k h Indi an s. Acco r di ngt o the U. S. S ta te D ep ar tm en t, th e ten sio n st em m ed b ac k to 19 84 . ( Id. at 374.) I n J u n e of th at year, then -Prim e M inister Ind ira Gand hi o rder ed m i l i tar y for ces to at tackthe hol i est4 N o. 12

- 2424 shrine i n Si khi sm , A m ri tsa r’ s Gol den Tem ple , wh i ch m i l i t an ts h ad be gu n u sin g a s a ca c h e. ( Id. ) H u n d r e ds die d i n the si ege , a n d , i n re sponse, two ofGand hi ’ s S i kh b od yg u ar d s a ss as sin at ed h er . ( Id. ) T he a s s a s s i na t i on spurre d ri ots and w i des pread ani m osi ty toward Si khs. ( Id. at374- 75. ) Thu s, th roughout the r esto fthe 1980 s and 90s, “S i khs a ffi l i ate d w i th S ikh pol i ti calo rg ani zati ons such as the Akal iDal and the A ll-Ind i a S i kh Stud ent F edera ti on . . . were ro uti nel y s ubj ecte d to seve re hu m an ri gh ts abu ses inclu d ing tort u r e , arbitrary ar re st, and sum m ar y k i l l i ngs. ” ( Id. at 37 5.) Si ngh repres ents one exam ple of thatd ar k his tory. A fter the 1 994 arre st, the pol i ce det ai ned Si ngh twice m or e. The next ar re st occur re d i n 199 5: S i ngh w as h eld f or fou r days, bea ten with sti cks, and or dered to te l lhis fat h er to lea ve th e A ka li D al. ( Id. at 262- 6 3
. ) T he third ar re st o c c u r r ed in 1 99 6. ( Id. at2 66
. ) Thi s fi na lt i m e, the p olic e h eld Sin gh for t w o d ay s , b e a t h im , an d p u t c h ili p ow d er in h is w ou n d s. ( Id. at 266- 67 .) Th e pol i ce a l so th re at en ed to st ag e a n en c ou n te r inw h ich t h ey w ou ld kill Sin gh if h e d id n otab an d on th e A ka li D al. ( Id. at 266. ) A fterthatl astar re st, S i ngh’s f am i l y a rr anged f or h im to lea ve th e c ou n tr y. ( Id. at26 7.) Si ngh c a me t o the Uni t e d S t a t e s . He n o w c l a i ms tha t he c a n n o tr e t u r n t o In d i a b e c a u s e th e a l l e g e d p e r s e c uti on he suffer ed m ak es h i m fearr ecei vi ng si m i l arabuse up on r etur n. To furthersupp ort thi s cl ai m , S i ngh te st ified th at p olic e o ffice rs st ill ask h is fa m ily inInd ia ab ou t h im . ( Id. at 27 0 -7 1.) Si ng h’s reason ing, how ever, d id n ot p ersu ad e IJ Z erbe. Th e IJ foun d that Si ng h’sN o. 12

- 2424 5 encounter s with the Punj ab i P ol i ce di d not a m ount t o past per sec u tio n . ( Id. at38

- 39. ) H e a l so f ound that S i ngh did nothave a w ell-fo und ed fearo ffuture perse cuti on du e t o gr eatchange s in I nd i a s in ce the ti m e S i ngh l eft. ( Id. at 39- 40. ) S peci fi cal l y, as IJ Zerbe no ted, vio lence ag ain stSikh s h as larg ely en d ed . ( Id. ) S y m bo l i zingthe n o w “ q u i e s c e n t ” s t a t e o fa ff a i r s , th e c u r r e n tP r i me M in ist er of Ind ia is a p ra c tic i n g S i kh . ( Id. at40
. ) Final l y, IJ Zerbe a l so f ound tha t Sin gh co uld e asi l y r el oca te w i thi n I nd i a, ev en i fS i khs in Punj ab c ontinu ed to f ace v i o len c e. ( Id. ) F o r a l lthe s e r e a s o ns , IJ Z e rb e de ni e d S i ng h an y re lief. ( Id. at40 -41 .) Si ngh so ught r evi ew bythe Board o fI m m i gr ati on A p p ea ls. In t h at p ro c ee d in g, Sin gh ch alle n ge d th e c re d ibi l i ty ofthe IJ ’ s s ourc es, the c on c lusi on that S i ngh had no t ex per i en ce d pa stper se cut i o n, a nd the fi ndi ng th at co n d i t i o n s in Ind ia h ad ch an ge d su b st an tia lly. ( Id. at 1 5 3

- 5 9
. ) T h e s e a r g u me n t s d i d n o tc o nv i nc e th e B I A, w h ich a f f i r m ed th e d ec isio n be low in a br ief op in ion . ( Id. at7 8- 80
. ) S i ngh n o w appe al s th atde ci si o n.

II. A NA LYSIS Befo re beg i nning, w e note that, i n the ti m e be tw een or alar gum ents and the i ssu in g o fthi s o pini on, S i ngh wa s r e mo v e d fr o m th e Un i t e d S t a t e s . Hi s r e mo v a l, h o wev er , d o e s n otm ak e t h is c as e m oo t. Ho r v. G o nz a les , 42 1 F. 3d 497, 49 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. Rather, ther e i s s ti l la l i ve, acti ve contr ove rs y w i th re al conse quences. For exam ple , i fwe gr anted S i ngh’s p eti ti on forr evi ew and re m anded6 N o. 12

- 2424 hi s ca se , the n S i ngh c o ul d c ha l l en ge his depo r ta ti o n a nd p ot en tia lly se ek rea d m iss ion to th e U n ite d Sta te s . See P eralta -C a brera v . Go nz a les , 501 F.3d 837, 842-43 (7th C ir. 2007 ). Th erefore, w e stil l ad d ress t h e m erits ofSi ng h’s cl ai m s.

A. As yl um U nd er8 U
. S. C. § 1 158(b) , bo th the S ecr eta ryo f H o m el an d S ec ur i tya nd the Att o r ne y Ge ne ral h av e au thor i ty to gr ant asy l um to re fugees . Yet bef ore e i ther offi ci al can exer ci se thi s pow er, an appli c an t m ust sat i sfy the defi ni ti on o f a “ re fugee”

— a p er so n“u n ab le . .

. to r eturn to ” herf or m erco untry as a r esul t o fei ther “p er se c u tio n or a w ell-fo u n d ed fea r of p er se c u tio n .” 8 U.S
. C. § 11 01(a) ( 42) ( A )
. A l though the st atute sa ys “o r, ” whi chi m pl i es tha t ei th er pa sto r futur e per se cutio n su ffice s, o u r c as es sh ow th at “a n d ” m or e a c c u ra te ly d es c rib es w h at is r e q u ire d

. See B a lliu v . Go nz a les , 46 7 F. 3d 609, 61 2 ( 7th C i r. 20 06)
. In other w or ds, an as ylu m cla im ba se d on p as t p er se c u t i o n g en er ally w ill no ts uc c e e d u nl e s s the a pp l i c a nt al s o has a well

- f ounded fea r of fu tu re p er se c u tio n . Se ei d. I ni ti al l y, appli cants can sa ti sfy the well

- f ounded fear r equi r ementthr o ug h a pr es um pti o n: tho se who de m o nst ra te p as t p er se c u tio n are p re su m ed to als o h av e a w ellfoun d ed fear of futu re pers ecu tion. 8 C
. F.R. § 208.13(b)( 1). T he gov ernm en t, ho wev er, c anr eb uttha t pr es um pti o n. To do s o, the gov er nm ent m ust pro ve one oftwo thi ngs by a p re p ond er ance o fthe evi dence: ( 1) “that there has b ee n su c h a ‘fu n d am en ta l ch an ge in c irc u m st an c es ’ inN o. 12

- 2424 7 th e ap p li can t’s coun try tha t the ap p li can t’s fear of perse cut i o n i s no l o ng er wel l

- f o unde d”; o r ( 2) “that th e appl i ca nt‘ coul d a vo i d futur e per se cut i o n b y r el o ca ting to anothe r part ofthe appli cant’ s country
. ’ ” Sosnovskaia v. G o nz a les , 4 21 F .3d 58 9, 59 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( i nter nalci tation om itted ) ( q uot i ng 8 C
. F.R. § 208.13(b)(1) (i ))
. W hen the gov er nm ent r ebuts the pr esum pti on, an asy l um appli c at ion f ai l s, unl ess the peti ti oner ’ s ca se f al l s into a nar ro w e xcepti on in w hi ch past perse cuti on alo n e s u ffice s. 8 C .F.R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 (b )(1) (iii). W e re fer to th is ki nd o fas yl um as “hum ani tar i an as yl um . ” Bru ca jv. A sh croft, 3 8 1 F
. 3 d 6 0 2 , 6 0 8 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 )
. T o qu a l i fy, t he appli cant m us t sh ow ei ther( 1) “co m pel l i ng r eas ons f or be i ngunwi l l i ngo r unabl e to r etur n to the c o unt r y a r i sing ou t ofthe seve ri ty ofthe past per secuti on” or( 2) “a re aso nabl e pr obab i l i ty th at he o r she m ay suffero ther se r i o us ha r m upon r emov alt o tha t co unt r y . ” 8 C. F
. R. § 2 0 8
. 1 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( i i i )
. On l y “ r a r e c a s e s ” me e tthis s t a nd a r d. To p t c h e v v . INS , 295 F.3d 714 , 721 (7th C ir. 2002). All th e ab o ve hi ng es upo n ho w o ne defines “p er se cuti on. ” W e hav e s ai d that per secuti on “ m ust threa ten death, i m pri sonm ent, o r the infl i ctio n ofsubst anti al harm o r suffer in g.” B o ci v. G o nz a les , 47 3 F
. 3d 762, 76 6 ( 7th Ci r . 20 07 )
. F ur th er m o r e, i n o r der to m ee t the s ta tu
tory r equ ire m ents, per secuti on m ust be o n acco unt of a pro tect ed sta tu s, nam el y “ ra ce, r el i gi on, nati onal i ty, m em ber shi p i n a par ti cul arso ci algr oup, o r po litic al op inion.” 8 U
. S. C
. § 1101(a)(42)( A ). I n th is c as e, IJ Zerbe found that S i ngh did notm eet any o fthe disc ussed st andards: S i ngh had n ot suffer ed8 N o. 12

- 2424 p ast p ersecu tion, ha d n o w e ll-fou nd ed fear of futu re perse cuti on, and di d no t quali fy f or hum ani tarian asyl um . The BI A affi rm ed w i th a br iefo pini on that me r e l y a g r e e d wi th th e IJ ’ s r e as o n i n g . C o n s e q u e n t l y, we base o ur rev i ew o n “the IJ ’ s o pini on, as supplem ented by the BIA ’s o pini on. ” B o rov sky v. Ho lder, 61 2 F
. 3d 917, 92 0 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ). W h en c o n sid er in g t h e a ge n c y’s d ec isio n, w e re vie w for s u b st an tia l ev id en c e. Gje raz i v. G o n z a les , 4 3 5 F
. 3 d 8 0 0 , 8 0 7( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 )
. T h u s , we wi l lr e v e r s e th e fi n d i n gb e l o w “ o n l y i ft he r e c o r d c o mp els a contr ar y r esul t. ” Borov s ky, 6 1 2 F
. 3 d a t9 2 1 ( i nt e rnal qu otation m arks om itted ).

1. Pas tpe rs e cu t i on IJ Ze rb e a nd the BI A c o nc l ud e d tha t S i ngh had not su ffer ed p as t p er se c u tio n . Th is fin d in g t ro u b les u s. T h e IJ an d BI A re l i ed he av i l y o n D anda n v. Ashcroft, a ca se in w hi ch Sy ri an f or ces ar re ste d the peti ti onerand detai ned him f or three d ays. 339 F. 3 d 567, 571 (7th Cir. 2003). Du ring the ar re st, autho ri ti es gave Dand an m i ni m al f o o d a n d w a t e r ; th e y a l s o b e a th i m u n t i lh i s f a c e b e c a me “swol l en. ” Id. at574. The BI A f ound t h at these ev ents did notq u al i fy a s pastper secuti on, and w e a ffi rm ed be ca us e th e r ec o r d di d no t co m pela c o nt r ar y c o nc l us i o n. Id. Ou r deci si on ste m m ed fro m tw o re l ate d reasons: ( 1) Dand an w as d eta i ned onl y o nce; and ( 2) hi s peti ti on lac ke d sp ec ific d et ails

. Id. at 573- 74. H er e, ho wev er, ne i th err ea so n a ppl i es . F i r st, the P u nj ab i Po lice arr es te d Sin gh th re e t im es an d be at h imN o. 12

- 2424 9 tw i ce. Fr equency o fpast abuse “fi gu re[ s] si gni fi cantl y” in d eterm ining w he th er action s rise to th e level of p erse c u tio n . Id. at 573. Thus, the factthatS i ngh w as ab u se d m u ltip le tim es im m ed iat ely d ist in gu ish es t h is c a s e fr o m D anda n . Se cond, Si ngh provi ded gr eat er detai l s of hi s abuse. D an d a n o n ly te st ified th at h e w as be at en an d th at h is f ace becam e s w ol l en, wh er eas S i ngh te sti fi ed to m uch mo r e . T o s e e the di ffe r e n c e , c o n s i d e r th e mo r e a p tc o mpar i so n b etwee n the situa ti o n h er e an d the o ne i n Ir as oc v. M uk a sey . 52 2 F
. 3d 7 27 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. I ra socwas det aine d t wo da y s an d b ea te n s ev er alt i m es , i nc l udi ng o ne t i m e th athe was k i ck ed i n the g r o i n so seve r elyhe l ostco nsci ousnes s. Id. a t7 2 8

- 2 9
. T h a tl e v e lo fd e t a i lc o mpel l ed us to r evers e the fi nd i ng tha t I ra sochad not su ffer ed pas t per se cut i o n. Id. at73 0. H er e, the quanti ty and quali ty ofdetai l s i s co m parabl e. S i ngh w as detai ned f ora tot alo fei gh t d ays ov erthe cour se ofthr ee ar re sts

— eve n l onge r than I ra soc . Duri ng two o ftho se ar re sts , Sin gh w as be at en , an d on on e o f th os e o c c as ion s, ch ili po wderwas r ubb ed i n h i s wounds

. F i na l l y, duri ng the l astar re st, S i ngh r ecei ved death threa ts. Ir as octherefore seem s to i nd ica te th at th e record co m pel s a co nc l us i o n c o nt r ar y t o the a g en cy ’ s. W e thus h av e g ra ve d ou b ts ab ou t t h e IJ’s fin d in g t h at Sin gh d id n otsu ffer p as t p er se c u tio n . W e n ee d n otd efin iti ve l y d eci de th e que st i o n, ho wev er . Ra th er, we ca n, f orcurr ent purp os es, as sum e that S i ngh suffer ed past p er se c u tio n, bec au se w e s till affir m th e a ge n c y’s d ec isi on o n the gr ounds that Si ngh la cked a well

- f ounded fea r o ffutur e per se cut i o n.10 N o. 12

- 2424 2. We l l

- f oun de d f e arof f ut urepe rs e cu t i on A s no ted abo ve, wh en a peti ti onerhas endu re d past perse cution, we presum e he al so has a well

- f ounded fear offuture perse cuti on. 8 C .F.R. § 208. 13(b) ( 1)
. The go ver nme nt, h o we v e r, c a n r e b utthi s p r e s umpt i o n i fa p r epond er ance o fthe evi dence shows ei ther( 1) “a fund am en ta l c ha ng e in cir cu m stan ces” i n th e ap p li can t’s hom e co untry that re futes a fearo fper secu ti on upon r etur n; o r ( 2) the a ppl i ca ntc an“ av o i d futur e per se cuti on byr el oca ting t o anothe r part of” hi s ho m e co untry. 8 C
. F.R. § 208.13(b)(1) (i ). T h e IJ a n d B IA d id n otgiv e Sin gh th e b en efitof th is pr es um pti o n b ec au se the y f o und thatthe pa stabus e he endu r e d d i d n o tqua l i fy a s p e r s e c ut i o n. As di s c us s e d, how eve r, we have doubts abo ut th at fi nd i ng. A s a re sul t, we assum ed Singh suffer ed past perse cuti on a n d m u st ac c or d in gly als o p re su m e h e h as a w ellfou n d ed fea r o ffu tu re p er se c u tio n . A t firs t, ou r d ec ision to a ppl y the pr es um pti o n mi g hts ee m t o war r an t re m an d in g t h e c as e. A s a ge n e r a l m at te r, w e re fra in from ruli ng on grou nd s tha t t h e a g e n cy d id n ot con side r. S e e, e . g. , IN S v . Ven tura , 537 U
. S. 12, 16-18 (2002) ( per c u r i am ); Ko ne v . Ho lder, 620 F.3d 760 , 763-64 (7th C ir. 2010 )
. That pra cti ce a l l ows the a gency t o ap plyi ts spe ci ale xpe r ti se whenthe i ss ue i s co ns ider ed f o r the firs t t im e. See V

entu ra , 53 7 U.S
. at16

- 18. W e d o n otn ee d to rem an d h er e, h ow ev er . T h e B IA sp ec ifica lly i ncl ud ed an al ter nati ve hol ding that add re sse d the rea soni ng we f ol l ow bel ow: eve n i fS i ngh w er e pr es um ed to ha ve a wel l

- f o unde d fea r o ffutureN o. 12

- 2424 11 perse cuti on, “the I m m i gr at ion Judge’ s fi nd i ngs with regard t o c ha ng e[ d] c o unt r y c o ndi ti o ns i n Indi a an d a v a i l ab i l i t y o fi nt e r na lr e l o c a t i o n a de qu a t e l y r e b ut t e d” th e pr es um pti o n. ( R. a t 46 n. 5. ) W e ca nno t se e why the BI A wo ul d c ha ng e thi s de c i s i o n i fwe r e mande d. Si ngh’s br i eft o th e B I A ar gued that he was enti tl ed to a pr es um ed fea r o ffutur e per se cut i o n b uttha t th e co nt r ar y e vi den ce di d no t reb ut tha t pr es um pti o n. ( R. at 156- 58. ) Thu s, the BIA he ar d S i ngh’s ar gum ents about the r el ati ve str ength ofea ch si de’s ev i dence before reach ing its al tern ative con clusion

. I t is th erefore properf orus t o re vie w the BI A ’ s fi nd i ng. In so doi ng, w e w ill a g a i n r ev iew for s u b st an tia l ev id en c e. Bru ca j, 381 F. 3d at 607. As a fi na lno te b efo r e addr es si ng the mer i ts , the abov e di scussi on a l so expla i ns wh y we r ej ect the g ove r nme nt ’ s c l a i m o fp ro c e du r a lde f a ul t
. Und e r 8 U. S
. C. § 1 252( d)( 1) , an a pp l i cant m ust e xhaust adm i ni str ati ve r emedi es b ef ore s ee k i ngj udi ci alr ev i ew. Thu s, i fthe BIA can pro vi de re l i efo n a c laim , an appli cant m ust prese nt thati ssue to the BI A befor e pr ese nti ng i t t o u s. M ura to ski v. Ho lder, 622 F.3d 824 , 830 -3 1 (7th Cir. 2010 ). H ere, th e govern m en t con ten d s t h a t Si ng h’s peti ti on t o the BI A did n ot c hal l enge the fi nd i ng tha t Si ngh co uld relo c ate withi n I nd i a, wh i ch w oul d m ean tha tS i ngh f a i l e d t o e xh a ust his c l a i m. Y e t, a s di s c us s e d, Si ngh ar gued to thatBI A thathe di d no t n ee d to s how an ina b ility to r e l o c at e. (R . at 1 57 .) I f th e g ov er n m en t d id not prese nt eno ugh evi dence to o ver com e S i ngh’s p resum ed fearo ffuture pers ecuti on, S i ngh co uld have won w itho utmakinga ny a ffi r m at i ve a r g um en ts abo ut12 N o. 12

- 2424

m oving. S i ngh ther ef or e rais ed the i ssue ofwh ether the gov er nm ent adequatel y re butted hi s presum ed fear o ffu t u r e p e r s e c u t i o n . Ne v e r th e l e s s , e v e n th o u g h we m ay c on sid erS i ngh’s cl ai m , we sti l lfi nd thatsubsta nti alev i dence supports the BIA’s al ternati ve hol ding.

a. Chan ge d c oun t ry c ondi t i ons The go ver nm ent’ s m any s ourc es dem onst ra ted that Singh no longer ha s a w ell -f ou nd ed fear of futu re pe rse c u tio n as a res u lt of sig n ifica n t ch an ge s in In d ia. See 8 C
. F.R. § 208.13(b)(1) (i )( A ). For exam p le, a 2 0 0 8 U
. S. St ate Departm ent r epor t e xplaine d t h at “co nd i ti ons f or In d i an S i khs di fferdram ati cal l y fro m tho se ofthe 1980 s and 1 990s
. ” ( R. at 375. ) The re port w ent on to d es c rib e sym bol s o fthi s chang e

— that “Si khs hav e a scended to th e hi g he stl ev el s o fthe Ind ian g o ve r nm en t, ” i nc l udi ng the c urr ent Pr i m e M i ni ste r, M an m oh an S i ngh, as wellas othe r “hi gh r anki ng . . . ge nera l s a nd m em ber s o fparliam ent.” ( Id. ) The r epor t di d acknowle dge thatpol i ce conduct m ake s “ hum an r i ghts abuses

. . . a l egi ti m ate thre at to al lInd ian s, ” but al so speci fi cal l y s ai d that “[ t] here i s no i nd i cati on . . . S i khs a re singl ed out f or su ch a bus e o r tha t su chabus e o cc ur s wi the i th erthe ove rto r taci t co nsent ofthe Gover nm ent o fInd i a. ” ( Id. ) Anothe r he l pfuls o urc e was a 2 00 9 r epo r t bythe U .S. Ci ti zenshi p and I m m i gr ati on S er vi ces’ s Country o f Ori gi n I nfo rm ati on R ese ar ch Se cti on ( “CO I RS”)
. Li ke th e State De par tment, COI RS s po k e to the “ si g ni fi ca nt i m prove m ents i n the hum an r i ghts si tuati on f orS i khs” inInd ia. ( Id. at4 05
. ) The r epo r t fr o m COI RS a l so wentN o. 12

- 2424 13 i nto fu rt h er detai labo ut the speci fi c si tuati on in Punj ab, S i n g h ’ s h o me s t a t e . T h e r e p o r ts t a t e d th a t“ we l l

- k n o wn S i k h s epa r at ists ha ve . . . r etur ne d t o Punj ab wi th o ut i nci dent. ” ( Id. at 40 6.) T he r epor t, however, al so i ncl ud ed l ess o pti m i st ic detai l s . On e quo t e d e xp e r ts t a t e d tha ts o me S i k h s e pa r a tist s h av e b ee n arr es te d in re sp on se to “o v e r t l y p u b lic acts o fprote st orexpre ssi on” and w er e then abuse d b y p olic e. ( Id. ) T hi s s tat em ent s eem s s up port ed by a few sho rtnews art i cl es subm i tte d by S i ngh t h at disc u ss P u nj ab i Po lice effo rt s t o c on ta inSikh p ro te st er s. ( Id. at 48- 74. ) Yet, o ther s ou rce s in the CO I RS r epor t ind i cate th at su c h inc id e n ts are isola te d . A m n es ty Int er n at ion al, f o r e xa m pl e, s ta te d tha t th e Punj ab iPo li ce c o nt i nue to ab u se “t h e p oo r, D alits ( “u nt o uch ab l es ”) , women, a nd h u m an righ ts ac tiv i s ts ,” b u t d id n otsp ec ifica lly m en t i o n Sikh s. ( Id. at 406. ) The COIRS re portal so sta ted that“nei therA m nestyInter nati ona l norH um an Rights W atch have re port ed any speci fi c abuses di re cted ag ain stSikh s b y t h e g ov er n m en ts of Ind ia or P u nj ab

. . . o v e r the pa s t t wo y e ar s. ” ( Id. at 410. ) Thus, al though these so urces i nd i cate thatco nd i ti ons ar e not perfect i n I nd i a, th ey show that s ubstanti alev i dence supports the BI A ’ s co ncl usi on: change d cou n tr y c ondit i ons re fute S i ngh’ s pr es um ed fea r o ffutur e per se cut i o n. Si ngh’s n ew s a rt i cl es and the e xpert sta tem ents abou t arrested Si kh sep aratists d o not p ersu ad e us oth erw i se. These sour ces speci fi cal l y add re sse d the situati on in Pu njab. Ind eed , perh a p s they sp eak to Singh ’s re sponse to the g ove rnm ent’ s e vidence

— th at Ind ia’s14 N o. 12

- 2424

c h an ge d p olit ica l clim at e “ d o e s n otm ak e a d iffer en c e,” gi ven that Punj ab had a Si kh i n char ge w hen Sing h l eft. ( Id. at 270. ) Y et , e ven i fPunj ab s ti l lhas vesti ges o f ab u se , th e c ou n tr y a s a w h ole d if f e r s d ra m at ica lly. A d d iti onal l y, co nti nued di ffi cul ti es i n Punj ab would not n eg at e t h e B IA ’s fin d in g t h at Sin gh co u ld rea s o n a b ly r e l o c a t e , wh i c h we d i s c u s s b e l o w.
b. Abil ity to rel ocate T h e g ov er n m en t a lso d em on st ra te d th at Sin gh co u ld b ot h rea so n ab ly a n d sa fely relo c at e w i t h i n Ind ia. See 8 C .F.R . § 20 8.1 3(b )(1) (i)(B ); see a l s o O rya khil v. M uk a sey, 52 8 F.3d 993, 9 98 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. S i ngh a r g ue d tha t th e Punj abiPol i ce hav e co nti nued to as k ab out hi m , that th ey “n ev er forg et,” an d th at th ey w ou ld tr a c k h im d ow n w h er ev er h e m ov ed . (R. at2 7 0 .) T h e B IA con clud ed that the g o v ernm en t’s sourc es sh ow ed otherw ise , and , o nce ag ai n, thi s co ncl usi on i s s up port ed by substa nti alev i dence. Th e 2 0 0 8 S t a t e De pa r t men tr e po r ts a i d tha tInd i an “l aw pr o vi des f o r fr ee do m o f m o ve m en t, an d the g o ve r nm en t g en er ally res p ec t[s ]” t h is rig h t. ( Id. at3 52
. ) The re p or t d i d note that the Ind i an go ver nm ent s om eti m es lim its th e a b ility of Sikh se p ar at ist s t o t ra ve l ab ro ad , ( i d. at3 52

- 53 ) , b uttha t r es tr i ct i o n wo ul d no t pr ev en t Si ngh fro m r el oca ti ng withi n Ind i a . T he I mm i g r ati on an d R efu ge e B oa rd of C an ad a fu rt h er bu tt re ss es th is concl usi on; i t found that “ i nter nalr el oca ti on i s no t a probl em f orS i khs in I nd i a. ” ( Id. at 40 6.)N o. 12

- 2424 15 The CO I RS r epor t pr ove s e ven m or e he l pfulbec ause i t addr e s s e s S i ngh’ s a r g ume ntab o utb e i ngf o l l o we d. Th e r e p o r tme n t i o n e d th a t“ h i g h

- l e v e lme mb e r s a nd activists of the A kaliDa l

. . . a r e s t illpron e to be arre ste d.” ( Id. a t 4 1 7
. ) I n f a c t, the s e pe o pl e mayneed t o w or ry a b o u t b ein g follo w ed , as Sin gh arg u ed . ( Id. at42 1.) The po l i ce , ho wev er, hav e l i m i te d the i r i nt er es t to hi g hr a nk i ngme mbe r s , e s pe c i a l l y “ ha r d- c o r e mi l i t a nt s. ” ( Id. ) Only a “ ver y s m al l ” nu m bero fpeopl e g ar ner such atte n tio n . ( Id. ) Subst anti alev i dence supports the Board’ s co ncl usi on that Si ngh w oul d not f al lam ong th at g roup. A s a y o u n gt e e n a g e r i n P unj a b , S i n g h h a d n o o ffi c i a lme mber shi p i n any Si kh se cess i oni st or gani zati ons. H e di spla yed m i ni m ali nvol vem ent whil e in India and has not pu rs ued anythi ng fu rther si nce e nter i ng the U ni ted St at es . ( Id. a t2 7 9

- 8 0
. ) S i ngh c o ul d h a v e b e e n c o ns i de r e d, at m ost, a ra nk- and-fi l e m em bero f t hese or gani zati ons. Fur ther m or e, any in vo l vem ent he had ended near l y tw o decades ag o. Giv en the se f acts , S i ngh does no t ha ve a n obj ect i ve l y r ea so nabl e fea r o fa tt r ac ting si g ni fi ca ntpo l i ce a tt en ti o n. Si ngh’s cl ai m th at t h e poli ce s ti l las k forhi m does not l ea d us t o a c o nt r ar y c o nc l us i o n. J us t be ca us e th e pol i c e r em ai n i nter est ed i n Singh does not m ean they consi der hi m the ki nd o fhi gh- profi l e m em b er they w oul d fo l l ow acro ss a s ubconti nen t. I t i s no tabl e, f or ex am p le, th at Sin gh ’s fath er , w h o w as far m or e a c tiv ely i nvol ved than S i ngh i n thes e t ar get ed pol i ti calgr oups, h as sa fely relo c at ed w ith inInd ia. ( Id. at 25 6); see also16 N o. 12

- 2424 To ptc hev , 2 95 F
. 3d at7 22 ( when fam il y mem be r s who sh ar e t h e a lleg ed gro u n d s fo r p er se c u tio n sa fely re loc at e w ith ina c ou n t ry , th at fac t u n d er c u ts p et iti o ne r ’ s fea r o ffutur e per se cut i o n)
. W e thus ha ve no re aso n to doubt S i ngh’s abi l i ty to fi nd ano therp lac e t o l i ve w i th in a countr y a s v astas Ind i a. S ubstanti al evid en c e s up port s the BI A ’ s co ncl usi on, and, acc or d in gly , th is re c or d d oe s n otco m p el re ve rs al. S i ngh di spu tes thi s co nc l us i o n a nd a r g ue s th atthe BI A di d no t ev enha ve the corr ec t co unt r y i n mi nd w h en d ec id in g h is c as e. Y etth e p re c ed in g a n aly sis shows w hy thi s a rgum ent f ail s. The BI A m enti oned I n d i a s e v e r a lt i me s i n i t s b r i e fo p i n i o n, ( R
. a t7 8

- 8 0 ) , a nd r e fe r e n c e d c o u n t r y -s p e c if ic r e a s o n s f r o m t h e IJ’ s opi ni on, such a s the factthatthe curr ent Pr i m e M i ni ste r is a p ra c tic in g Sik h, ( i d. at79 )
. Th e o nl y s up portS i ngh can fi nd f orhi s a rgum ent i s o ne se nt en c e in the fi nal p ar ag ra p h of th e B IA ’s o p in ion, w h i c h m ist ak en ly re fer re d t o Si ngh’s hom e countr y as Ch i na. ( Id. a t 8 0.) Singh begins h is open ing brief by calli ng this e r r or a “[m ]isc h ar ac te riz at io n ” o f su c h “s ev er ity ” t h at it co n st itu t e s r e v e r s ib l e e r r o r . ( P e t ’ r ’ s B r . a t1 1
. ) Al th o u g h we und er sta nd the offense Si ngh to ok to such ca re l es sn es s, i t i s st i l lmore th an cl ea r, b as ed upo n the BI A’s o pi ni o n a s a whol e, tha t the a gen cyus ed th e c o r r e c tf a c t s w h e n e v a l ua t i n gS i n g h ’ s c l a i m. Thi s o bv i o us ty p o is n otrev er sib le e rro r. Se eU ni t e d S t ates v . M ar i on , 590 F. 3d 475, 47 6 n. 1 ( 7th Ci r. 2009) ( ove rl oo ki ng a “s im p le typo ” when i t was “ r ea di l y a ppar en t fr o m the othe r pa rt s” ofthe deci si on be l ow that the co urt had n o n eth eless un d erstood and prop erly an alyzed the argu m en ts p resen ted to i t).N o. 12

- 2424 17 4. Hum ani t ar i an as yl um A lthou gh Si ng h h as n o w e ll -f ou nd ed fear of futu re per se cut i o n, w e m us t al so a ss ur e o ur se l ve s th athi s si tu
at i o n do es no t quali fy f o r humani ta r i ana sy l um

— th e na r r o w se t o fc as es i n whi chpa st per se cuti o n a l o ne suffi ces. The IJ f ound that S i n gh ’s case did notm eet th is s ta n d ar d , ( id. at 39- 40) , and the re cord does not com pel o ther w i se. To qua l i fy f o r hum an i ta r i ana sy l um , S i ngh’ s per se cuti on needed to have “bee n so outr age ous ( l i ke th e N azi tr eat m ent o f t h e Jew s) thata com pel l ed re turn .
. . ev en w ith

. . . ap olo gie s from on e’s for m er p er se c u t o r s w ou ld b e a c r uel ty. ” Ha ile v. Ho lder, 591 F.3d 572 , 575 (7th C ir. 20 10 ); s e ea l s o As a n iv . INS , 154 F. 3d 719, 72 4 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) ( describi ng tha t a peti ti onerm ust suffer a “ seve r[ e] ” “ l eve l o fa tr o ci ty ” t o qual i fy f o r hum an i ta r i anas y l um )
. W e byno m eans w an t to m i ni m i ze the s uffer i ng tha t S i ngh has e nd ure d, b uth i s c a s e do e s n o ta pp r o a c h tha ts t a nd a r d. Su b st an tia l ev id en c e s u p p o r ts th e B IA ’s c on c lu sio n : i t w oul d not be i nhum ane t o re turn S in gh to Ind i a ba sed u p on h is p a s t en c ou n te rs w ith th e P u nj ab i Po lice

. See 8 C. F. R. § 208. 13(b) ( 1) ( i i i ) ( A )
. S i m i l ar l y, the re cord does not pro v id e reason to beli eve th at Singh w il l face ha rm u p on h is re tu rn to Ind ia. See 8 C.F. R
. § 208.13(b)( 1)(i ii )( B ).

B. Wi t hhol di ng of

Re m oval an d Pr ot e ct i on und e rtheConven tio n A ga inst To rture A s we have sa id m any t i m es bef or e, withhol ding of re m ova land prot ecti on under the Conventi on Agai nst T or tu r e a r e m or e lim ite d rem ed ies th an as ylu m . Se e, e . g. ,18 N o. 12

- 2424 Ha o Z hu v. G o nz a les , 465 F.3d 3 1 6 , 322 (7th C ir. 2006); A hm ed v. Ashcroft, 34 8 F
. 3d 611, 61 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03)
. There

f or e, a partywh o does not q u alifyf oras yl um nece ss a r i l y d oe s n otqu alify for th es e re m ed ies eith er . Se e, e . g. , M ekh tiev v . H o l der, 559 F.3d 725 , 731 (7th C ir. 2009); D anda n , 339 F.3d a t 57 5 n .7. B ec au se w e h av e u p h eld the BI A ’ s deci si on t o deny a sy lu m , S i ngh i s a l so not en titl ed to these other form s of reli ef.

C. Cre di b i l i ty Det e r m i nat i on Al tho ugh thi s r e c o rd do e s n o tc o mpe lr e v e r s a l, we do fee lc o m pel l ed to no te IJ Ze rbe ’ s co nduc t du ring the admi ni st r at i ve he ar i ng . As a mean s o f te st i ngr el i g i o us bel i ef, IJ Zerbe ques ti oned S i ngh on the t enets o fS i khi sm us ing inform ation gath ered from W iki p ed ia. ( R
. at 36 n.2); ( i d. a t 29 9)
. F o r e xa m pl e, IJ Ze rbe as k ed S i ngh abo utthe s y mb o l i s m b e h i n d c e r t a i n o bj e c t s r e v e r e d i n S i k h i s m, th e re as on s fo r p ar tic u lar tra d itio n s, an d Sin gh ’s c om p lian c e w ith ru les th at Si k h s m u st follow . ( Id. at29 4-3 01 .) T h ro u gh ou t t h e e x c h an ge , Sing h at te m p te d t o e x p lain w hat he und er sto od thes e rel i gi ous b el i ef s t o m ean and w hy he did notf ol l ow cert ai n pract ice s. IJ Zerbe, how ev er, se em ed onl y inter est ed i n answers that par r o te d b ac kthe e xa ctl an g ua g e o fthe W i k i pedi a en tr y. Based upon Singh’s di ver gence fro m thatte xt, Z erb e d ou b te d Sin gh ’s c laim to be a Sik h . ( Id. at 35 -36 .) IJ Zerbe’ s be havi orwas i napp ro p ria te. A s we have sa i d i n the F i r stAm en dm en t co nt ex t, “ a since re re l i gi ous b eli eve r doesn’ t for fei t hi s r el i gi ous r i ghtsN o. 12

- 2424 19

m er el y b ecause he i s no t s c rupulo us i n hi s obser vance; f o r wh e r e wo ul d r e l i g i o n b e wi tho uti t s b a c k s l i ders, penit ents, and prodi galso ns?” G ray son v. Sch uler, 66 6 F. 3d 450, 45 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12)
. Th e sam e i s t rue here

. H ow ma n y C h r i s t i a n s w o u l d s t r u g g l e t o r e c i t e th e T e n C o mm andm ents i n or der? O r to f ol l ow them ev er y day? H ow m any J ew s m igh t not know the sym bol i sm behi nd ea ch co m ponent o fthe Se der? D o th ese f oibl es m ake i nd i vi du al s a ny l ess sincer e in thei r bel i ef s? W e thi nk n ot . Rather than se eking a verbati m r eci tat i on o fan e n c yclo pedia ar ti cl e, IJ s s houl d l i ste n to a peti ti oner ’ s per sonalexpl anation ofr el i gi ous b el i ef s. IJ s , l i k e di s t r i c tc o ur tj ud g e s , a r e i n the b e s tp o s i t i o n to e v a l ua t e a wi tne s s ’ s c r e dib i l i t y . T he y s ho ul d u s e tha ta dvantag e t o thoughtfully c onsidera peti ti oner ’ s t one, w or d s, an d d em e a n o r, as w ell as oth er ind icia of re liabi l i ty. The IJ ’ s e val uati on o fwh ether a witnes s i s a m em bero fa re l i gi on s houl d fl ow fr om thes e obser vati o ns

— n otsim p ly fro m th e a b ility (or in ab ility ) t o re c all doctr i ne. Ortho doxy i s no subst i tute f orsincer i ty.

III. C ON CLU SI ON Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we D EN YS i ngh’s peti ti on f o r r e v i e w.

6- 21- 13