UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SIMRANJOT SINGH, Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 22

- 794 Agency No. A215

- 666

- 482 ORDER

Before: S.R. THOMAS, BRESS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges

. Judges S.R. Thomas and Johnstone have voted to amend the memorandum disposition and to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge Bress has voted to grant the petition for panel rehearing. The memorandum disposition filed on December 11, 2023 is amended as follows: Delete the sentence reading: We therefore remand for the agency to reevaluate Singh’s asylum, withholding, and CAT claims to determine whether BJP members constitute government perpetrators under Kaur , and if so, whether the government rebutted the presumption of a nationwide threat under Whitaker

. 

# FILED
FEB 2 8 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 794 Replace that sentence with the following: We therefore remand for the agency to reevaluate Singh’s asylum and withholding claims to determine whether BJP members constitute government perpetrators under Kaur , and if so, whether the government rebutted the presumption of a nationwide threat under Whitaker

. We also remand to the BIA to reevaluate Singh’s CAT claim, including his ability to relocate. With the amendment, Respondent’s petition for panel rehearing is DENIED
. No future petitions will be entertained.N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

SIM R A NJOT SINGH, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ER R IC K B
. GAR LAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 22-794 Age n c y No. A215-666-482 AM ENDED M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 6, 2023 ** Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : S.R . THOM A S, B R ESS, a nd JOHNSTONE, C irc uit Judge s . Disse n t by

Judge B R ESS. Pe titione r Sim

ra njot Singh, a

na tive a nd c itiz e n

of India , pe titions for re vie w of a de c i sion by

the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a l s (“ the B IA” ) a ffirm ing the Im m i gra tion Judge ’ s de nia l of a sy lum , withholding, a nd prote c tion unde r the



# F IL ED
FEB 28 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ) a nd de ny ing Singh’ s m otion to re ope n for

c onside ra tion of ne w e v i de nc e . W e ha ve jurisdic t ion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a ). As the pa rtie s a re fa m ilia r with the fa c ts, we do not re c ount the m he re . W e gra nt the p e tition a

n d re m a n d a s to a sy lum , withholding, a nd prote c tion unde r the C AT,

a nd de ny the pe tition a s to the m otion to re o pe n. W e re vie w fa c tua l findings for substa ntia l e vide nc e a n d que stions of la w de

novo. Bhattarai v . Ly nc h , 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th C i r. 2016). W he re , a s he re , the B IA “ ha s re vie we d the IJ’ s de c ision a nd inc orpora t e d portions of it a s its own,

we tre a t the inc orpora te d pa rts of the IJ’ s de c i sion a s the B IA’ s.” Molina-Estrada

v . IN S , 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th C ir. 2002) (a s a m e nde d). W e re vie w the B IA’ s de nia l of a

m otion to re ope n for a

buse of disc re tion

. Tzompantzi-Salazar v

. Garland , 32 F.4th 696, 702 (9th C ir. 2022). I The B IA’ s de nia ls of a sy lum , withholding, a nd C AT prote c tion e a c h re lie d on its de te rm i na t ion tha

t Singh— a lthough a vic tim of pa st politic a l pe rse c ution a t the h a nds of B ha

ra tiy a Ja na ta Pa rty (“ B JP” ) m e m

be rs— c ould sa fe l y re loc a te to a n
a re a of India not c ontrolle d by

the B JP, suc h a s De lhi. As the B JP is the ruling pa rty of India ’ s na

tiona l gove rnm e nt, the B IA e rre d in fa iling to c o nside r whe the r Singh wa s e ntitle d to a

pre sum ption of a na tionwide thre a t of pe rse c u tion.

2“ [W ] he n a pe titione r suffe rs pe rse c ution a t the ha nds of a m a j or politic a l pa rty . . . the sourc e of the pe rse c ution is the gove rnm e nt itse lf.” K

aur v . W ilk inson , 986 F.3d 1216, 1228 (9th C i r. 2021). And “ whe re the a p plic a nt ha s
e sta blishe d a we ll-founde d fe a r of future pe rse c u tion a t the ha nds of the gove rnm e nt, a

re butta ble pre sum

ption a rise s tha t the thre a t e xists na

tionwide .” Singh v . W

hitak e r , 914 F.3d 654, 661 (9th C ir. 2019) (quoting Me lk onian v

. Ashc roft , 320 F.3d 1061, 1070 (9th C ir. 2003)); se e also 8 C .F.R . § 1208.13(b)(3)(ii) .
He re , the B IA did not c onside r tha t the B JP c ontrols India ’ s na tiona l gove rnm e nt or a

p ply the pre sum

ption of a na tionwide thre a t. On the c ontra ry , the B IA a dopte d the IJ’ s findings tha t “ De lhi is not c ontrolle d

by the B JP.” Ha d the B IA c onside re d the na tionwide pre sum ption, the B IA would ha

ve ne e de d to

c onside r tha t the B JP “ is the na tion’ s gove rnm e nt” a nd tha t “ [i] t ha s ne v e r be e n thought tha

t the re a re sa fe pla c e s within a na tion whe n

it is the na tion’ s gove rnm e nt tha

t ha s e nga g e d in the a c ts of punishing opinion tha t ha ve drive n the vic t im to le a ve the c ountry .” Singh v . Mosc horak , 53 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th C ir. 1995). Although the

B IA did a

pply the pre sum

ption of a we l l-founde d fe a r of pe rse c ution, tha

t pre sum p tion is no substitute

for the pre sum

ption of na

tionwide pe rse c ution. W

hitak e r , 914 F.3d a

t 661 (re m a nding whe re “ [t] he B IA f a i l e d t o 3a p p l y t h a t na t ionwide pre sum p tion to Singh’ s a sy l um

c la im , e v e n though it

c orre c tly a fforde d him

the pre sum

ption of a we ll-founde d fe a r of pe rse c u tion” ); Me l k onian , 320 F.3d a

t 1070 (distinguishing be

twe e n the two pre sum

ptions).
W e the re fore re m a nd for the a ge n c y to re e va lua te Singh's a sy l um a nd withholding c l a im s to de te rm ine whe the r B JP m e m be rs c onstitute

gove rnm e nt pe rpe t ra t ors unde r Ka

ur, a nd if so, whe the r the gove rnm e nt re butte d the pre s um ption of a na tionwide thre a t unde r W hita ke r. W e a lso re m a nd to the B IA to

re e v a lua te Singh's C AT c la i m , inc luding his a bility to re loc a te
. II The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing Singh’ s m otion to re ope n. The ne w e vide nc e pre se n te d by Singh wa s not m a te ria l be c a use Singh’ s c la i m

re sts on his pe rse c ution a s a

M a nn Pa rty m e m b e r, a nd the ne w e vide nc e did not re la te to pe rse c ution a ga inst M a nn Pa rty m e m be rs. Se e Tzompantzi-Salazar , 32 F.4th a t 703 (“ [T] he a ge nc y

m a y de ny a m otion to re ope n if . . . the pe titione r fa ile d to introduc e pre viously

una va i la ble m a te ria l e vide nc e .” ) Ac c ordingly , Singh’ s pe tition is de

nie d a s to the m otion to re ope n. PE T IT IO N G RANT E D IN PART , DE NIE D IN PART , RE M ANDE D
.

41 Singh v. Garland , 22

- 794 BRESS, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the decision to grant the petition for review as to the asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims. I would deny the petition in full. S ubstantial evidence supports the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. Having found that the petitioner demonstrated past persecution, the BIA properly afforded the petitioner a rebuttable presumption of future persecution. Following our direction in Singh v. Whitaker , 914 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2019 ), the BIA conducted “ a reasoned analysis with respect to [the] petitioner’s individualized situation,” id. at 661, and determined that the government rebutted the presumption by showing that Singh could safely and reasonably relocate within India to an area like Delhi

. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B) (2018). As part of its relocation analysis, the BIA considered and rejected the possibility that the petitioner would face a risk of future persecution because the BJP was a part of the national government. Citing the IJ’s reasoning, the BIA explained that petitioner “is not a high

- profile militant of the Mann Party, and

. . . his pro

Khalistani views would not make him of interest to government authorities.” And t he BIA specifically rejected the petitioner’s assertion “that the Immigration Judge did not consider the risk that he faces from the ruling BJP party.” A t the end of its 

# FILED
FEB 2 8 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 analysis, the BIA cited 8 C.F.R § 1208.13(b)(3)(ii), the very provision the petitioner argues the agency ignored by failing to address his concern that the BJP is part of the national government

. Because the BIA properly afforded the petitioner the presumption of future persecution by the BJP upon relocation, th is case is unlike Singh v. Whitaker , in which the BIA only considered whether authorities in Punjab would pursue the petitioner to a new location

. 914 F.3d at 661

. Likewise, the BIA’s analysis was consistent with Kaur v. Wilkinson , 986 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2021)

. T he BIA did what we directed it to do in that case: “conduct a thorough, individualized analysis of [the petitioner’s] ability to relocate internally, placing the burden on the government as required under Singh .” Id. at 1231. The rest of Kaur , including its direction about what constitutes “the government” for purposes of a past persecution analysis, is not relevant here, because the BIA treated the petiti oner as having established past persecution. Su bstantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Singh failed to show it is “ more likely than not ” that he would be tortured if returned to India. Vitug v. Holder , 723 F.3d 1056, 1066 (9th Cir. 2013) . Singh has not alleged any past harm rising to the level of torture. See Sharma v. Garland , 9 F.4th 1052, 1067 (9th Cir. 2021)

. Nor has Singh demonstrated a likelihood of future torture, especially considering his ability to safely relocate within India. The evidence thus3 “does not compel the conclusion” that Singh will more likely than not be tortured if removed to India. Tamang v. Holder , 598 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th Cir. 2010). I therefore respectfully dissent from the grant of the petition as to the asylum, withhold ing of removal, and CAT claims.