18-3754 Singh v. Garland BIA Segal, IJ A206 097 724 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 17th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 GURPREET SINGH, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-3754 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Anas J. Ahmed, Esq., Jackson 24 Heights, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General; Andrew 28 N. O’Malley, Senior Litigation 1 Counsel; Brendan Paul Hogan, 2 Attorney, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 DC.

6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

9 is DENIED.

10 Petitioner Gurpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India,

11 seeks review of a November 29, 2018, decision of the BIA

12 affirming an October 30, 2017, decision of an Immigration

13 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and

14 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re

15 Gurpreet Singh, No. A 206 097 724 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2018),

16 aff’g No. A 206 097 724 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 30, 2017).

17 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts

18 and procedural history.

19 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for

20 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland

21 Sec.,

(2d Cir. 2006). We review the

22 agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual

23 determinations for substantial evidence. Y.C. v. Holder, 741

(2d Cir. 2013). 2 1 An asylum applicant like Singh who has suffered past

2 persecution is presumed to have a well-founded fear of future

3 persecution.

(b)(1). “The presumption

4 may be rebutted” where an IJ finds that “[t]he applicant could

5 avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of the

6 applicant’s country . . . and under all the circumstances, it

7 would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.”

8 § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B). 1 Where an applicant has established

9 past persecution, the Government can rebut the presumption

10 where a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the

11 applicant can safely relocate within his own country. Id.

12 § 1208.13(b)(1)(ii). The agency considers the

13 reasonableness of relocation, including “whether the

14 applicant would face other serious harm in the place of

15 suggested relocation; any ongoing civil strife within the

16 country; administrative, economic, or judicial

17 infrastructure; geographical limitations; and social and

18 cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health, and social

19 and familial ties.” Id. § 1208.13(b)(3).

20 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s internal

1 Citations are to the version of the regulations in effect at the time of Singh’s proceedings before the agency. 3 1 relocation determination. As an initial matter, the IJ did

2 not err in relying on the contents of the 2016 State

3 Department Human Rights Report for India for the fact that

4 India does not prohibit internal movement: the agency may

5 take administrative notice of “[t]he contents of official

6 documents.” Id. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv). The State Department

7 report, other country conditions evidence in the record, and

8 Singh’s testimony support the agency’s relocation finding.

9 The IJ properly identified grounds supporting the

10 internal relocation determination. First, Singh’s fear was

11 based on the Congress Party’s activities with the cooperation

12 of police in Punjab, not mistreatment of Shiromani Akali Dal

13 Amritsar (“SADA”) party members at a national level. Second,

14 the evidence did not show contemporary widespread persecution

15 of SADA members outside of Punjab. Third, Singh was a low-

16 level party member who was active with SADA in India only

17 between 2012 and 2014. The country conditions evidence

18 reflected mistreatment of Sikhs in Punjab, but only isolated

19 incidents of persecution of Sikhs in other Indian States.

20 Singh argues that relocation would be unreasonable

21 because the police in Punjab failed to protect him in the

4 1 past and Congress Party members could locate him through a

2 national identification database. However, the record does

3 not support his allegation that the Congress Party could

4 locate him outside of Punjab through the database (or would

5 have an interest in doing so), particularly because Singh was

6 not a SADA leader and was active with the party in India only

7 between 2012 and 2014. Singh further argues that relocation

8 would be unreasonable because it would sever him from

9 cultural, religious, and familial ties. There is no

10 indication, however, that he would be unable to practice his

11 culture and religion or see his family if he relocated within

12 India. See Singh v. BIA,

(2d Cir. 2006)

13 (“Asylum in the United States is not available to obviate re-

14 location to sanctuary in one’s own country.”).

15 Because Singh’s withholding of removal and CAT claims

16 rested on the same factual basis as his claim for asylum, the

17 agency’s internal relocation finding is dispositive of all

18 relief. Lecaj v. Holder,

, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2010);

19

(b)(1)(i)(B), (c)(3)(ii) (ability to

20 relocate internally similarly precludes withholding of

21 removal and CAT relief)

5 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

2 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

3 stays VACATED.

4 FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 6 Clerk of Court

6