Court Opinion

ID: 9961404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 17:01:06.07182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:42.680031
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 18 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LAKHBEER SINGH,                                 No. 23-20
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A209-937-412
 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                       Argued and Submitted April 4, 2024
                           San Francisco, California

Before: M. SMITH, HURWITZ, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

      Lakhbeer Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an

order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of an

order from an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. When the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (B.I.A. 1994), and offers

additional reasoning, we review both decisions. Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172,

1177 (9th Cir. 2008). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Garcia v.

Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d

1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010)). We deny the petition.

      Substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum and withholding of

removal. When an asylum applicant establishes past persecution, the government

may rebut the resulting presumption of future persecution by showing that “[t]he

applicant could avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of the

applicant’s country of nationality.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B). The internal

relocation analysis has two steps: “(1) ‘whether an applicant could relocate safely,’

and (2) ‘whether it would be reasonable to require the applicant to do so.’” Singh v.

Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 659 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d

924, 934 (9th Cir. 2010) overruled on other grounds by Bringas-Rodriguez v.

Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc)). The IJ and BIA properly

discounted both Singh’s testimony and his mother’s unsworn statement that police

accused him of militancy. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1021 (9th Cir. 2006)

(“[W]here an asylum applicant’s testimony consists of hearsay evidence, the

statements by the out-of-court declarant may be accorded less weight by the trier of

fact when weighed against non-hearsay evidence.”). The country conditions reports

                                        2                                       23-20
in the record provide substantial evidence that Singh can safely and reasonably

relocate within India, as he is not of interest to central authorities.

      Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT protection. To qualify

for CAT protection, an applicant must establish that, if removed, “it is more likely

than not that he or she would be tortured” by or with the consent or acquiescence

of a public official in the country of removal. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2),

1208.18(a)(1). Singh argues only that the IJ and BIA failed to consider whether the

police’s militancy accusation will cause him to be tortured in the future. But

because the IJ and BIA appropriately gave the militancy accusation little weight,

see Gu, 454 F.3d at 1021, and the IJ expressly found that Singh was “not a

hardcore militant,” the country conditions reports provide substantial evidence that

Singh is not likely to be tortured in the future. The record does not compel a

contrary conclusion.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                          3                                      23-20