Court Opinion

ID: 9949036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 17:00:55.605568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:33.341351
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11070   Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 03/08/2024    Page: 1 of 8

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11070
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       GURPREET SINGH,
                                                               Petitioner,
       versus
       U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                                              Respondent.

                          ____________________

                   Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                        Board of Immigration Appeals
                          Agency No. A216-176-673
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11070         Document: 23-1         Date Filed: 03/08/2024         Page: 2 of 8

       2                          Opinion of the Court                       23-11070

       Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Gurpreet Singh seeks review of the Board of Immigration
       Appeals’ (BIA) ﬁnal order aﬃrming the denial of his application for
       asylum and withholding of removal. Singh contends the denial of
       asylum and withholding of removal was not supported by substan-
       tial evidence because he demonstrated he suﬀered repeated mis-
       treatment by members of a political party that rose to the level of
       persecution, and he demonstrated a well-founded fear of future
       persecution based on his political opinion. After review,1 we deny
       the petition.
                                    I. DISCUSSION
              The Attorney General may grant asylum to a non-citizen
       who is outside his country of nationality, unwilling to return, and
       unable to avail himself of its protection because of persecution or
       a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his race, religion,
       nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
       opinion. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(A); 1101(a)(42)(A). The asylum

       1 Because the BIA adopted the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision, we review

       both the BIA and IJ’s decisions. See Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1230
       (11th Cir. 2006). We review factual determinations under the substantial evi-
       dence standard, “which provides that the decision can be reversed only if evi-
       dence compels a reasonable fact finder to find otherwise.” Lyashchynska v. U.S.
       Att’y Gen., 676 F.3d 962, 967 (11th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted). We
       must affirm if the BIA’s decision is supported by reasonable, substantial, and
       probative evidence when the record is considered as a whole. Id.
USCA11 Case: 23-11070        Document: 23-1    Date Filed: 03/08/2024     Page: 3 of 8

       23-11070                Opinion of the Court                         3

       applicant carries the burden of proving statutory “refugee” status.
       8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Diallo v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 596 F.3d 1329,
       1332 (11th Cir. 2010).
       A. Past Persecution
              Persecution is an extreme concept that is evaluated by con-
       sidering the cumulative impact of the harms suffered by the peti-
       tioner. Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1353 (11th Cir.
       2009). Serious physical injury is not required to prove past perse-
       cution where the petitioner demonstrates repeated threats com-
       bined with other forms of serious mistreatment. De Santamaria v.
       U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 999, 1009 (11th Cir. 2008).
              In Mejia, we concluded the petitioner suffered persecution
       where he was the target of attempted attacks over an 18‑month
       period, received multiple death threats, and was physically at-
       tacked twice, once when a large rock was thrown at him and once
       when members of the gang targeting him broke his nose with the
       butt of a rifle. Mejia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 498 F.3d 1253, 1257‑58 (11th
       Cir. 2007). We concluded “the threats and attacks the petitioners
       suffered were neither isolated nor simply harassment.” Id. at 1257
       (quotation marks omitted). Conversely, in Djonda, we concluded
       the record did not compel a finding the petitioner suffered past per-
       secution where the petitioner was threatened with imprisonment,
       detained for 36 hours in a small cell shared by 12 people, and was
       beaten twice, once involving a belt and resulting in scratches and
       bruises. Djonda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1168, 1171‑74 (11th Cir.
USCA11 Case: 23-11070         Document: 23-1         Date Filed: 03/08/2024          Page: 4 of 8

       4                          Opinion of the Court                        23-11070

       2008). We concluded that minor beatings and verbal threats did
       not compel a finding of past persecution. Id. at 1174.
               Moreover, violence accompanying “a credible death threat
       by a person who has the immediate ability to act on it constitutes
       persecution regardless of whether the threat is successfully carried
       out.” Diallo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 596 F.3d 1329, 1333-34 (11th Cir.
       2010) (finding past persecution where the petitioner suffered a mi-
       nor beating and was detained for eleven hours, but was also threat-
       ened with death by the same soldiers who also killed his brother).
       See also De Santamaria v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 999, 1009 & n.7
       (11th Cir. 2008) (“We may consider a threatening act against an-
       other [the murder of the petitioner’s family groundskeeper] as evi-
       dence that the petitioner suffered persecution where that act con-
       comitantly threatens the petitioner.”); Delgado v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
       487 F.3d 855, 859-61 (11th Cir. 2007) (finding persecution based on
       cumulative effect of two attacks (including one attack where the
       attackers pointed unloaded guns at the petitioners and pulled the
       triggers), continued threatening phone calls, and two instances of
       the petitioner’s car being disabled and vandalized with political
       graffiti).
             The BIA did not err in adopting the IJ’s decision to deny
       Singh’s application for asylum and withholding of removal.2

       2 “To be entitled to withholding of removal, the petitioner[ ] must meet a

       higher evidentiary threshold than the well-founded fear standard for asylum.”
       Jathursan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 17 F.4th 1365, 1375 (11th Cir. 2021). “Specifically,
       the petitioner must establish that he or she would more likely than not be
       persecuted on account of a protected ground.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).
USCA11 Case: 23-11070        Document: 23-1        Date Filed: 03/08/2024        Page: 5 of 8

       23-11070                  Opinion of the Court                              5

       Despite finding Singh credible, the IJ determined the two attacks
       suffered by Singh did not rise to the level of persecution. Singh
       testified he was attacked twice, suffering bruising from the first in-
       cident and wounds to his arms from the second. His attackers also
       threatened to kill him if he continued working for the Mann Party,
       and Singh testified that after he left India, men went into his par-
       ent’s house asking his whereabouts and attacked his parents and
       sister.
               We have determined that similar minor beatings and threats
       did not amount to persecution. See Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 1352-
       53; Djonda, 514 F.3d at 1171-74. And while we have held that cred-
       ible death threats paired with violence can constitute past persecu-
       tion, the facts of Singh’s case do not rise to the level of those in
       Diallo, De Santamaria, and Delgado. Diallo, 596 F.3d at 1333-34; De
       Santamaria, 525 F.3d at 1009; Delgado, 487 F.3d at 859-61. The IJ
       likened Singh’s injuries to a street fight and noted this does not
       meet the extreme threshold of persecution. Viewing the record in
       the light most favorable to the agency, the evidence here, which
       consists only of Singh’s testimony, does not compel a finding con-
       trary to the IJ’s finding. See Sanchez Jimenez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 492
       F.3d 1223, 1230 (11th Cir. 2007) (stating, under the substantial evi-
       dence standard, we “view the record evidence in the light most fa-
       vorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences
       in favor of that decision” (quotation marks omitted)). Singh has

       A petitioner who fails to meet the burden of proof for asylum generally cannot
       meet the higher burden of proof for withholding of removal. Id.
USCA11 Case: 23-11070      Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 03/08/2024     Page: 6 of 8

       6                       Opinion of the Court                23-11070

       not shown error in the denial of asylum and withholding of re-
       moval relief based on past persecution. Accordingly, we deny his
       petition as to this issue.
       B. Future Persecution
               A well-founded fear of future persecution may be estab-
       lished by showing: (1) past persecution that creates a presumption
       of a “well-founded fear” of future persecution; (2) a reasonable pos-
       sibility of personal persecution on account of a protected ground
       that cannot be avoided by relocating within the subject country; or
       (3) a pattern or practice in the subject country of persecuting mem-
       bers of a statutorily defined group of which the alien is a part. 8
       C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1), (2). To show future persecution in the ab-
       sence of past persecution, a petitioner must show his well-founded
       fear of future persecution is subjectively genuine and objectively
       reasonable. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1257 (11th Cir.
       2006). “The subjective component is generally satisfied by the ap-
       plicant’s credible testimony that he or she genuinely fears persecu-
       tion.” De Santamaria v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 999, 1007 (11th Cir.
       2008) (quotation marks omitted). The objective prong is generally
       satisfied by showing the applicant “has a good reason to fear future
       persecution.” Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1257 (quotation marks omitted).
       To establish a “pattern or practice” of persecution based on mem-
       bership in a group, the applicant must show “extreme and perva-
       sive” persecution. Lingeswaran v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 969 F.3d 1278,
       1290-91 (11th Cir. 2020).
USCA11 Case: 23-11070      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 03/08/2024     Page: 7 of 8

       23-11070               Opinion of the Court                          7

               An alien does not have a well-founded fear if he could avoid
       persecution by reasonably relocating within his country. 8 C.F.R.
       § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii). The reasonableness of relocation depends upon
       all the circumstances, including the country’s size; the geographic
       locus of the persecution; the size, numerosity, and reach of the per-
       secutor; and the applicant’s demonstrated ability to relocate to the
       United States. Id. (b)(3).
               As discussed above, Singh did not establish past persecution
       such as would create a presumption of a “well-founded fear” of fu-
       ture persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1), (2). Therefore, Singh
       must demonstrate his fear of future persecution is subjectively gen-
       uine and objectively reasonable. See Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1257. The IJ
       found Singh credible, which satisfies the first prong, but Singh’s tes-
       timony supports the IJ’s finding that Singh’s fear is not objectively
       reasonable. See De Santamaria, 525 F.3d at 1007. Singh is a young,
       low-level, non-militant worker such that he is unlikely to be tar-
       geted on an individual basis. Additionally, Singh could reasonably
       relocate within India to avoid future harm, as is evidenced by his
       travel to Delhi and ability to stay there several days before leaving
       the country. Singh appears to have the financial means to relocate,
       since he was able to travel to the United States with an agent hired
       by his family. In total, this suffices as evidence that Singh’s fear of
       future persecution is not objectively reasonable. Because Singh
       fails to establish the well-founded fear of persecution required for
       asylum, he also fails to meet the burden of proof for withholding
       of removal. See Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 1352 (stating if an applicant
       cannot meet the well-founded fear standard of asylum, he generally
USCA11 Case: 23-11070         Document: 23-1          Date Filed: 03/08/2024          Page: 8 of 8

       8                          Opinion of the Court                         23-11070

       will not be qualified for withholding of removal). As such, we deny
       his petition as to this issue.
                                    II. CONCLUSION
              The BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence be-
       cause two relatively minor attacks not resulting in serious injury
       do not rise to the level of persecution, and Singh did not demon-
       strate an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution because
       he is able to safely relocate within India. We deny his petition. 3
               PETITION DENIED.

       3 Singh also contends the IJ erred in finding he was harmed for reasons other

       than his political opinion. Even if Singh established that his political opinion is
       a central reason behind the attacks, his claim fails because he failed to demon-
       strate past persecution or a well‑founded fear of future persecution.