N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
PARDEEP SINGH,

Pe t i tione r,
v. M ATTHEW

G. W H ITAKER , Ac t ing Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-71107 Age n c y No. A200-989-088
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 13, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FISHER

and M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B UC KLO, Distric t

Judge
. ** Parde e p Singh pe titions for re vie w of a de c ision by

the B oa rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a l s de ny ing his a pplic a tions for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, hum anita rian a sy lum

and prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT). 

# FIL ED N OV 28 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion 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.

* * T he Honora

b le Ela i ne E. B uc klo, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa tion.W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we grant in pa

rt a nd de ny in pa

rt Singh’ s pe tition. 1. W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the de nia l of Singh’ s c la im s for a sy lum
and withholding of re

m o va l be c a

use Singh ha s not “ e xha

uste d a l l a dm i nistra

tive
re m e die s a

v a ila ble .” 8 U.S.C . § 1252(d)(1). Singh a rgue s the B oa

rd e rre d by fa iling to a

na ly z e whe the r he c o uld sa fe ly and re a sona

bly re loc a te within India , give n his inte ntion to e nga ge in politic a l a c t ivity . B e c a use he did not pre se nt this
argum e nt in thea dm i nistra tive proc e e dings, we c annot c onside r it. Se e Figue roa v . Muk ase y , 543 F.3d 487, 492 (9th C ir. 2008). 2. The B oa

rd did not a

buse its disc re t ion in de ny ing Singh hum an ita rian
a sy lum be c a

use he fa i l e d to de m onstra te suffic ie ntly

se ve re pa st pe rse c ution. Se e Vongsak dy v . IN S , 171 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th C ir. 1999). Nor did the B oa rd a buse its disc re t ion in providing a brie f e xpla

nation for de ny ing re lie f. The B oa rd’ s de c ision e na

ble s us to de te rm ine tha

t it he ard, c o nside re d a

nd de c ide d the hum anita rian a sy lum

c la i m . Se e Marc u v . IN

S , 147 F.3d 1078, 1082-83 (9th C ir. 1998). 3. Fina lly , the gove rnm e nt a rgue s Singh did not e xha

ust his C AT c la im be c a use it wa s insuffic ie n tly

pre se nte d to the B oa

rd. B ut Singh ra ise d the c la im in the t itle pa ge , introduc tion a nd c onc lusion of his a

ppe lla te brie f and pre s e nte d
2argum e nt in thebrie f that supporte d the c la im . This wa s suffic ie nt for e xha ustion. Se e Figue roa , 543 F.3d a t 492. B e c a

use the B o ard c o nc lude d

Singh ha d not
a ppe a le d the C AT c la im , it did not c o nside r whe the r Singh ha d e sta b lishe d it wa s
m ore like ly

tha n not he would be torture d if re t urne d to India
. Se e 8 C .F.R
. § 1208.16(c )(2). W e re m a nd to the B oa

rd to m a ke this de te rm ination in the first insta nc e . Se e IN

S v
. Ve ntura , 537 U.S. 12, 16-17 (2002). Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts on a

ppe a l. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D in par t; G RANT E D in par t; RE M ANDE D
.

3