18

- 3754 Singh v. Garland BIA Segal , IJ A 206 097 724 

### 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 TO 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** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the**  **Thurgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 1**  **7 t**  **h da**  **y of M**  **a y**  **, two thousand twenty** 
**- one** 
**.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JON O. NEWMAN ,**  7 **REENA RAGGI ,**  8 **MICHAEL H. PARK ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **GURPREET SINGH ,**  13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15
**v. 18** 

**- 3754**  16 **NAC** 17 **MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED**  18 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL ,**  19 **Respondent**

**.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Anas J

. Ahmed , Esq., Jackson 23 Heights , NY

. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Brian M. Boynton , Acting 26 Assistant Attorney General ; Andrew 27 N. O’Malley , Senior Litigation 282 Counsel ; Brendan Paul Hogan , 1 Attorney, Office of Immigration 2 Litigation, United States 3 Department of Justice, Washington, 4 D C. 5
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 8

is DENIED

. 9

Petitioner Gurp reet Singh , a native and citizen of India , 10

seeks review of a November 2 9 , 2018 , decision of the BIA 11
affirming an October 30 , 2017 , decision of an Immigration 12
Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and 13
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. In re 14
Gurpreet Singh , No. A 206 097 724 (B.I.A. Nov. 29 , 2018 ), 15
aff’g No. A 206 097 724 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 30 , 2017 ). 16
We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 17
and procedural history. 18

We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for 19
the sake of completeness

. ” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 20

Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006)

. We review the 21
agency’s legal conclus ions de novo and its factual 22

determinations for substantial evidence. Y.C. v. Holder , 741 23

F.3d 32 4 , 332 (2d Cir. 2013). 243 An asylum applicant like Singh who has suffered past 1
persecution is presumed to have a well

- founded fear of future 2
persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). “The presumption 3
may be rebutted” where an IJ finds that “[t]he applicant could 4
avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of the 5
applicant’s country . . . and under all the circumstances, it 6

would be re asonable to expect the applicant to do so.” Id. 7

§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B)

. 1 Where an applicant has established 8
past persecution, the Government can rebut the presumption 9

where a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the 10
applicant can safely relocate within his own country

. Id. 11

§ 1208.13(b)(1)(ii). The agency considers the 12

r easonableness of relocation , including “whether the 13
applicant would face other serious harm in the place of 14
suggested relocation; any ongoing civil strife within the 15

coun try; administrative, economic, or judicial 16
infrastructure; geographical limitations; and social and 17
cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health, and social 18

and familial ties.” Id. § 1208.13(b)(3). 19
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s internal 20

1 Citations are to the version of the regulations in effect at the time of Singh’s proceedings before the agency.4 relocation determination

. As an initial matter, the IJ did 1

not err in relying on the contents of the 2016 State 2
Department Human Rights Report for India for the fact that 3
India does not prohibit internal movement : the agency may 4

take administrative notice of “ [t]he conten ts of official 5

documents

. ” Id. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv). The State Department 6
report, other country conditions evidence in the record, and 7
Singh’s testimony support the agency’s relocation fi nding

. 8
The IJ properly identified grounds supporting the 9

internal relocation determination

. First, Singh’s fear was 10
based on the Congress Party’s activities with the cooperation 11
of police in Punjab, not mistreatment of Shiromani Akali Dal 12

Amritsar (“SADA ”) party members at a national level . Second, 13
the evidence did not show contemporary widespread persecution 14
of SADA members outside of Punjab . Third, Singh was a low

15
level party member who was active with SADA in India only 16

between 2012 and 2014. The co untry conditions evidence 17

reflected mistreatment of Sikhs in Punjab, but only isolated 18

incidents of persecution of Sikhs in other Indian States

. 19
Singh argues that relocation would be unreasonable 20

because the police in Punjab failed to protect him in the 215 past and Congress Party members could locate him through a 1
national identification database. However, the record does 2
not support his allegation t hat the Congress Party could 3

locate him outside of Punjab through the database (or would 4
have an interest in doing so) , particularly because Singh was 5
not a SADA leader and was active with the party in India only 6
between 2012 and 2014. Singh further argue s that relocation 7

would be unreasonable because it would sever him from 8
cultural, religious, and familial ties . T here is no 9

indication , however, that he would be unable to practice his 10
culture and religion or see his family if he relocated within 11

India

. See Singh v. BIA , 435 F.3d 216, 219 (2d Cir. 2006) 12
(“Asylum in the United States is not available to obviate re

13
location to sanctuary in one’s own country.”). 14
Because Singh’s withholding of removal and CAT claims 15

rested on the same factual basis as his claim for asylum, the 16
agency’s internal relocation finding is dispositive of all 17

relief

. Lecaj v. Holder , 616 F.3d 111, 119

– 20 (2d Cir. 2010); 18

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B), (c)(3)(ii) ( ability to 19
relocate internally similarly precludes withholding of 20

removal and CAT relief) 216 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 2

stays VACATED. 3

FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 5 Clerk of Court 6