20

- 3 514 Singh v. Garland BIA Schoppert , IJ A2 02 067 255
**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 APP ENDIX**  **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** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at t**  **he Thurgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 3**  **r d**  **da y of**  **A u**  **g u**  **s t**  **, two thousand**  **twenty**
  4 ** three**

**.** 5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **ROSEMARY S. POOLER ,**  8 **WILLIAM J. NARDINI ,**  9 **MYRNA PÉREZ ,**  10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **RISPUDAMAN SINGH ,**  14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16
**v. 20** 

**- 3**  **514** 17 **NAC** 18 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 19 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 **Respondent**

**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Suraj Raj Singh , Esq. , Richmond 24 Hill , NY

. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Brian M. Boynton , Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General ; John W

. 28 Blakeley , Assistant Director ; 292 Elizabeth K. Fitzgerald

- Sambou , 1 Trial Attorney , Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, 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 Rispudaman Singh , a native and citizen of 10

India , seek s review of a September 17 , 2020 decision of the 11

BIA affirming a May 1 6 , 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge 12

(“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 13
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. In re 14
Rispudaman Singh , No. A20 2 067 255 (B.I.A. Sept. 17 , 2020 ), 15
aff’g No. A20 2 067 255 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 1 6 , 2018 ). 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 conclusions de novo and its factual 22

determinations for substantial evidence. Y.C. v. Holder , 741 23
F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013). 243 Whe n , as here, the agency conclude s that an asylum 1
applicant suffered past persecution, the applicant is 2
presumed to hav e a well

- founded fear of future persecution on 3

the same basis

. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). “Th at presumption 4
may be rebutted” where an IJ finds that “[t]he applicant could 5
avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of the 6
applicant ’ s country of nationality

. . . and under all the 7
circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect the applicant 8

to do so.” Id. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B). 1 T he Government may 9

rebut the presumption if a preponderance of the evidence 10
establishes that the applicant can safely relocate within his 11

own country. Id. § 1208.13(b)(1)(ii). The agency considers 12
the reasonableness 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
country; administrative, economic, or judicial 16
infrastructure; g eographical limitations; and social and 17
cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health, and social 18

and familial ties.” Id. § 1208.13(b)(3). 19

1 Citations are to the version of the regulations in effect at the time of Singh’s proceedings before the agency.4 As an initial matter the IJ did not abuse his discretion 1
in accepting and considering a memorandum on internal 2

r elocation from the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) 3
filed five days before the hearing because an IJ has 4
discretion to accept an untimely filing. See 8 C.F.R. 5

§ 1003.31(c); 2 Dedji v. Mukasey , 525 F.3d 187, 191

— 92 (2d Cir. 6

2008) ; see also Immigration Court Practice Manual, Chap. 7
3.1(d)(ii)

. 8
Singh was assaulted by members of the Akali Dal Badal 9

p arty (“Badal Party”) because of his membership in the 10

Shiromani Akali Dal Mann Amritsar party (“SADA”) party, and 11
the police in his home state of Punjab beat and detained him 12
when he reported the attack. Substantial evidence supports 13
the agency ’ s conclusion that he could relocate

. The IJ 14
identified the following grounds supporting relocation : 15
Singh’s past harm was limited to his home state of Pun jab; he 16
had a low position within SADA; the record suggested that 17
only local police, and not federal authorities, were involved 18

in his past harm, and the police are entities of state 19

2 The c urrent provision is the same, but is found at § 1003.31(h).5 governments, not the national government; there are no 1
significant bar riers to internal migration in India; Singh is 2
relatively young; despite Punjabi being his primary language, 3
Singh was able to support himself in the United States; and 4
nothing in the record suggest ed he would be unable to support 5
himself in another part o f India , where English is also 6
spoken

. 7
Singh’s challenges to this determination fail. The 8
agency was not required to identify a specific location in 9
India where Singh could relocate

. See 8 C.F.R. 10

§§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), (3), 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B), (3); 11

Matter of M

- Z

- M

- R

- , 26 I. & N. Dec. 28, 33

– 34 & n.5 (B.I.A. 12

2012) ( explaining that DHS can meet its burden by showing 13
that conditions outside of the home region “were not such 14
that the applicant would have a well

- founded fear”); s ee also 15
Singh v. BIA, 435 F.3d 216, 219 (2d Cir. 2006); Singh v. 16

Garland , 11 F.4th 106, 117

– 18 (2d Cir. 2021). The country

17

conditions evidence discusses mistreatment of Sikhs in 18
Punjab, but no t persecution of Sikhs in other states , and the 19

evidence states that the Badal Party’s influence is generally 20
limited to Punjab. See Certified Admin. R

. at 186

– 87. Singh 216 argues that the Badal Party can persecute him outside of 1
Punjab because it is affiliated with the Bharatiya Janata 2

Party that controls the national government; however, the 3

country

- conditions evidence does not reflect nation

- wide 4
persecution of SADA supporters, but only prosecution of some 5
high

- level SADA members on terrorism and sedition charges. 6
In sum, substantial evidence supports the a gency’s 7
relocation finding given evidence that Sikhs can live in other 8
areas of India and the Badal Party’s influence is limited, 9
and the fact that there is no evidence the national government 10
is targeting members of SADA. 11
Singh contends that the BIA err ed by deeming his CAT 12

claim waived ; even assuming error in that waiver finding , 13
Singh’s withholding of removal and CAT claims fail on the 14
same grounds as his asylum claim, so the r elocation finding 15
is dispositive of all forms of relief

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

– 20 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that an applicant 17

who fails to establish requisite probability of future 18
persecution for asylum claim “necessarily” fails to meet 19
higher standard for withholding of removal and CAT relief); 20

see also 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B), (c)(3). 217 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