20-688 Singh v. Garland BIA Douchy, IJ A205 991 480 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 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 19th day of May, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 EUNICE C. LEE, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 PRABHDEEP SINGH, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-688 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Nicholas J. Mundy, Esq., 24 Brooklyn, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General; 28 Anthony C. Payne, Assistant 1 Director; Neelam Ihsanullah, Trial 2 Attorney, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 DC.

6

7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

10 is DENIED.

11 Petitioner Prabhdeep Singh, a native and citizen of

12 India, seeks review of a February 5, 2020 decision of the BIA

13 that both affirmed a March 27, 2018 decision of an Immigration

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

15 denied Singh’s motion to remand. 1 In re Prabhdeep Singh, No.

16 A 205 991 480 (B.I.A. Feb. 5, 2020), aff’g No. A 205 991 480

17 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Mar. 27, 2018). We assume the parties’

18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

19 Under the circumstances, we have considered the IJ’s

20 decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v.

21 Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2005) (“Where the BIA

22 adopts the decision of the IJ and merely supplements the IJ’s

1Singh also applied for humanitarian asylum before the agency, but he does not raise that claim here. 2 1 decision, . . . we review the decision of the IJ as

2 supplemented by the BIA.”). The applicable standards of

3 review are well established. See

(b)(4)(B)

4 (providing that “the administrative findings of fact are

5 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be

6 compelled to conclude to the contrary”); Yanqin Weng v.

7 Holder,

(2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing fact

8 finding for substantial evidence and questions of law de

9 novo); Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of Just.,

, 157

10 (2d Cir. 2005) (reviewing denial of motion to remand for abuse

11 of discretion).

12 I. Relocation Within India

13 Singh asserted a fear of persecution based on his past

14 persecution at the hands of members of the Congress Party on

15 account of his status as a Sikh nationalist and his activities

16 for the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar Party (“Mann Party”) in

17 his home state of Punjab. Where, as here, the agency

18 concludes that an applicant suffered past persecution, the

19 applicant is entitled to a presumption of future persecution;

20 the burden then shifts to the Government to show, by a

21 preponderance of the evidence, that, as relevant here, the

3 1 applicant could safely relocate within the country of removal

2 to avoid future persecution.

(b)(1)

3 (asylum), 1208.16(b)(1)(i) (withholding of removal); Kone v.

4 Holder,

(2d Cir. 2010). Factors affecting

5 the reasonableness of relocation include “whether the

6 applicant would face other serious harm in the place of

7 suggested relocation; any ongoing civil strife within the

8 country; administrative, economic, or judicial

9 infrastructure; geographical limitations; and social and

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

11 and familial ties.”

(b)(3). 2

12 We find no error in the agency’s conclusion that the

13 Government met its burden to demonstrate that Singh could

14 relocate within India. Congress Party members harassed or

15 attacked Singh in 2012 and 2013, but all four incidents

16 occurred in or around his home village in Punjab. He did not

17 attest to any encounters outside of his village, and the

18 country conditions evidence in the record reveals significant

19 Sikh populations in states other than Punjab and does not

20 report persecution of those communities. We have previously

2 Citation is to the regulation in effect at the time of the proceedings before the agency. 4 1 found no error in a relocation finding based on a similar

2 record involving an asylum applicant who was Sikh and a member

3 of the Mann Party. See Singh v. Garland,

, 117

4 (2d Cir. 2021). Contrary to Singh’s position here, there is

5 no evidence that police in Punjab recorded his identity when

6 he made a report against the Congress Party members or that

7 there is a communication system between police departments in

8 different states.

9 Singh also argues that the Government failed to identify

10 a particular area to which he could safely relocate within

11 India. Although the Government did not identify one single

12 place, the record reflects that the Congress Party controls

13 only 6 of India’s 29 states and the Government’s brief to the

14 IJ noted other states with economic opportunity and

15 substantial Sikh or Punjabi-speaking populations to which

16 Singh could relocate. Accordingly, we find no error in the

17 agency’s initial relocation finding, which was dispositive of

18 asylum and withholding of removal.

19 II. Motion to Remand

20 Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion in declining to

21 remand for further consideration of relocation. Singh moved

5 1 to remand to present evidence that the Hindu nationalist

2 Bharatiya Janata Party’s (“BJP”) 2019 electoral victories

3 made it the majority political party in India. The asylum

4 applicant carries “the ‘heavy burden’ of demonstrating that

5 []proffered new evidence would likely alter the result in

6 h[is] case.” Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

(2d

7 Cir. 2008) (quoting INS v. Abudu,

(1988)).

8 Singh did not meet this heavy burden. He did not suffer

9 persecution by the BJP in the past, and the evidence he

10 presented did not establish that he would not be able to

11 relocate safely because it reported that “[r]eligious freedom

12 conditions varied dramatically from state to state,” with

13 some suffering from mob violence but others remaining “open

14 and free for religious minorities.” Certified Administrative

15 Record at 37 (U.S. Commission on Int’l Religious Freedom’s

16 2019 Annual Report on India). Moreover, the arrest and

17 prosecution of three Sikhs that he relied on as evidence of

18 likely persecution occurred in Punjab, not in other areas of

19 India to which the agency had determined he could relocate.

20

21

6 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

7