SINGH v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-05-13No. No. 15-70316

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied, and the Board of Immigration Appeals' order denying the motion to reopen is affirmed.

Narinderjit Singh, an Indian citizen, sought review of a decision denying his request to reopen removal proceedings before the Board of Immigration Appeals. Singh, a former member of a Sikh student organization who left India 25 years ago and does not advocate for violent separatism, argued that new evidence about persecution of Sikhs in India warranted reopening his case. The court found that while documents showed some Sikhs face persecution, Singh presented no evidence that these changed conditions were relevant to his particular circumstances or that Indian authorities had any interest in him.

The court upheld the BIA's decision, concluding that Singh failed to demonstrate that new country conditions were material to his own situation. The opinion also rejected Singh's argument that the BIA ignored his torture-based claim for relief, finding that the agency had properly considered and rejected it based on the evidence presented.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether new evidence of country conditions affecting Sikhs in India was material to petitioner's specific circumstances
Whether petitioner established risk of persecution or torture upon return to India
Whether Board of Immigration Appeals properly considered torture-based claims for relief

Procedural posture

Petitioner sought judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Narinderjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Yeghiazaryan v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2006). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in concluding that Singh failed to demonstrate that any change in country conditions was material to his particular circumstances. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008). Although the documents submitted establish that Sikhs (who are actively engaged or suspected of militant, terrorist, or violent activities) may be subjected to persecution or torture, there was no new evidence submitted that was material to Singhs situation—a former member of the All India Sikh Students Federation who has not been in India for 25 years and who does not support the establishment of a separate Khalistan by violence. The record does not support Singhs claim that he would be persecuted or tortured because of his prior activities or an imputed political opinion.

Nor is there any evidence that Indian authorities have any interest in him. Accordingly, Singh has not shown that the BIAs decision was “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

. We reject Singhs argument that the BIA did not consider Singhs claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture when it denied the motion to reopen. The BIA concluded that Singhs evidence did not establish that he would be “arrested or otherwise harmed” (which would include being tortured), if he returned to India.