20-3514

Singh v. Garland

BIA

Schoppert, IJ

A202 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 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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 

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

New York, on the 3rd 4 day of August, two thousand twenty5 three.

6

7 PRESENT:

8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,

9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI,

10 MYRNA PÉREZ,

11 Circuit Judges.

12 _____________________________________

13

14 RISPUDAMAN SINGH,

15 Petitioner,

16

17 v. 20-3514

18 NAC

19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 

20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

21 Respondent.

22 _____________________________________

23

24 FOR PETITIONER: Suraj Raj Singh, Esq., Richmond 

25 Hill, NY.

26

27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 

28 Attorney General; John W. 

29 Blakeley, Assistant Director; 
2

1 Elizabeth K. Fitzgerald-Sambou, 

2 Trial Attorney, Office of 

3 Immigration Litigation, United 

4 States Department of Justice, 

5 Washington, DC.

6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 

9 is DENIED.

10 Petitioner Rispudaman Singh, a native and citizen of

11 India, seeks review of a September 17, 2020 decision of the 

12 BIA affirming a May 16, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge 

13 (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 

14 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 

15 Rispudaman Singh, No. A202 067 255 (B.I.A. Sept. 17, 2020), 

16 aff’g No. A202 067 255 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 16, 2018). 

17 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 

18 and procedural history.

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

20 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep't of Homeland 

21 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the 

22 agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual 

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

24 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013).
3

1 When, as here, the agency concludes that an asylum 

2 applicant suffered past persecution, the applicant is 

3 presumed to have a well-founded fear of future persecution on 

4 the same basis. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). “That presumption 

5 may be rebutted” where an IJ finds that “[t]he applicant could 

6 avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of the 

7 applicant’s country of nationality . . . and under all the 

8 circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect the applicant 

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

10 rebut the presumption if a preponderance of the evidence 

11 establishes that the applicant can safely relocate within his 

12 own country. Id. § 1208.13(b)(1)(ii). The agency considers 

13 the reasonableness of relocation, including “whether the 

14 applicant would face other serious harm in the place of 

15 suggested relocation; any ongoing civil strife within the 

16 country; administrative, economic, or judicial 

17 infrastructure; geographical limitations; and social and 

18 cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health, and social 

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

1 Citations are to the version of the regulations in effect 

at the time of Singh’s proceedings before the agency.
4

1 As an initial matter the IJ did not abuse his discretion 

2 in accepting and considering a memorandum on internal 

3 relocation from the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)

4 filed five days before the hearing because an IJ has

5 discretion to accept an untimely filing. See 8 C.F.R. 

6 § 1003.31(c);2 Dedji v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 187, 191—92 (2d Cir. 

7 2008); see also Immigration Court Practice Manual, Chap. 

8 3.1(d)(ii). 

9 Singh was assaulted by members of the Akali Dal Badal 

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

11 Shiromani Akali Dal Mann Amritsar party (“SADA”) party, and 

12 the police in his home state of Punjab beat and detained him 

13 when he reported the attack. Substantial evidence supports 

14 the agency’s conclusion that he could relocate. The IJ 

15 identified the following grounds supporting relocation: 

16 Singh’s past harm was limited to his home state of Punjab; he 

17 had a low position within SADA; the record suggested that 

18 only local police, and not federal authorities, were involved 

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

2 The current provision is the same, but is found at § 

1003.31(h).
5

1 governments, not the national government; there are no 

2 significant barriers to internal migration in India; Singh is 

3 relatively young; despite Punjabi being his primary language, 

4 Singh was able to support himself in the United States; and 

5 nothing in the record suggested he would be unable to support 

6 himself in another part of India, where English is also 

7 spoken. 

8 Singh’s challenges to this determination fail. The 

9 agency was not required to identify a specific location in 

10 India where Singh could relocate. See 8 C.F.R. 

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

12 Matter of M-Z-M-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 28, 33–34 & n.5 (B.I.A. 

13 2012) (explaining that DHS can meet its burden by showing 

14 that conditions outside of the home region “were not such 

15 that the applicant would have a well-founded fear”); see also 

16 Singh v. BIA, 435 F.3d 216, 219 (2d Cir. 2006); Singh v. 

17 Garland, 11 F.4th 106, 117–18 (2d Cir. 2021). The country18 conditions evidence discusses mistreatment of Sikhs in 

19 Punjab, but not persecution of Sikhs in other states, and the 

20 evidence states that the Badal Party’s influence is generally 

21 limited to Punjab. See Certified Admin. R. at 186–87. Singh 
6

1 argues that the Badal Party can persecute him outside of 

2 Punjab because it is affiliated with the Bharatiya Janata 

3 Party that controls the national government; however, the 

4 country-conditions evidence does not reflect nation-wide 

5 persecution of SADA supporters, but only prosecution of some 

6 high-level SADA members on terrorism and sedition charges. 

7 In sum, substantial evidence supports the agency’s 

8 relocation finding given evidence that Sikhs can live in other 

9 areas of India and the Badal Party’s influence is limited, 

10 and the fact that there is no evidence the national government 

11 is targeting members of SADA. 

12 Singh contends that the BIA erred by deeming his CAT 

13 claim waived; even assuming error in that waiver finding, 

14 Singh’s withholding of removal and CAT claims fail on the 

15 same grounds as his asylum claim, so the relocation finding 

16 is dispositive of all forms of relief. See Lecaj v. Holder, 

17 616 F.3d 111, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that an applicant 

18 who fails to establish requisite probability of future 

19 persecution for asylum claim “necessarily” fails to meet 

20 higher standard for withholding of removal and CAT relief); 

21 see also 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B), (c)(3). 
7

1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

2 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 

3 stays VACATED.

4 FOR THE COURT: 

5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

6 Clerk of Court