Court Opinion

ID: 9818212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 05:34:01.545168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:54.117389
License: Public Domain

WATFORD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I don’t think the government successfully rebutted Mr. Singh’s presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution by proving changed country conditions. The police continue to harass Mr. Singh’s family, which demonstrates that conditions haven’t “changed sufficiently so as to overcome that presumption.” Rios v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 895, 901 (9th Cir.2002). The majority describes the continued harassment as “linked to the motive of taking money,” Maj. op. at 366, but the record suggests that’s only partly true. Mr. Singh credibly testified that the police are motivated “at least in part” by the officers’ belief that he’s associated with the militant group Babbar Khalsa. See Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d 732, 736 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc). The majority also notes that “any residual problems of custodial abuse involve high profile Sikh leaders.” Maj. op. at 366. But Mr. Singh has been arrested before and clearly remains of interest to the police, so he’s still at risk even as a low-profile militant.