20-1754 Singh v. Garland BIA Thompson, IJ A205 935 828 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.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 22nd day of November, two thousand twenty- two.

PRESENT: GERARD E. LYNCH, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________

LOVEJEET SINGH, Petitioner,

v. 20-1754 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________

FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Esq., Jackson Heights, NY.

FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director; Susan Bennett Green, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

is DENIED.

Petitioner Lovejeet Singh, a native and citizen of India,

seeks review of a May 18, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming

a June 5, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)

denying Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). In re Lovejeet Singh, No. A205 935 828 (B.I.A. May

18, 2020), aff’g No. A205 935 828 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June

5, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

underlying facts and procedural history.

We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the

BIA, and address only the grounds that the BIA relied on.

See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

(2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well

established. See

(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he

2 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the

contrary.”); Yanqin Weng v. Holder,

(2d

Cir. 2009) (reviewing factual findings for substantial

evidence and questions of law and application of law to facts

de novo).

Singh alleged past persecution by members of the Congress

Party on account of his support for the Shiromani Akali Dal

Mann Party (“Mann Party”) and his Sikh faith. Because the

BIA assumed credibility and past persecution, Singh was

entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future

persecution.

(b)(1). However, that

presumption may be rebutted where a preponderance of the

evidence demonstrates that circumstances have fundamentally

changed.

§ 1208.13(b)(1)(ii). The changed

circumstances must “obviate the risk to life or freedom

related to the original claim.” Kone v. Holder,

, 148–49 (2d Cir. 2010). When assessing whether there has

been such a change in the country of removal, the IJ should

undertake an individualized analysis and consider the most

recent U.S. State Department report and other evidence

3 submitted by the applicant. See Passi v. Mukasey,

, 101–03 (2d Cir. 2008) (remanding based on “cursory

treatment” of issue where agency ignored evidence favorable

to applicant).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion

that conditions have changed such that Singh no longer has a

well-founded fear of persecution from the Congress Party.

The 2017 State Department Report for India establishes that

the Congress Party is no longer in power nationally and it

does not reflect ongoing violence between supporters of the

Congress Party and Singh’s party. The country conditions

evidence otherwise discusses the treatment of opposition

political parties in Punjab, which is not Singh’s home state,

predates the 2014 election, or fails to describe ongoing

violence. The evidence indicates there are over 16 million

Sikhs living in India and as of 2013, the Sikh population

faced “little discrimination” across India. On this record,

the agency did not err in finding that Singh no longer had a

well-founded fear of future persecution from Congress Party

members. See Kone, 593 F.3d at 149 (presumption of well-

founded fear is rebutted where preponderance of the evidence

4 shows “changed conditions obviate the risk to life or freedom

related to the original claim”). The agency did not err in

denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection

because all three claims were based on the same factual

predicate. See Lecaj v. Holder,

, 115–16, 119–

20 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that where record does not

demonstrate chance of persecution required for asylum, it

“necessarily fails to demonstrate” the likelihood of harm for

withholding of removal and CAT relief). For the same reason,

Singh’s pattern or practice argument fails. He asserts that

he demonstrated a pattern or practice of persecution of

similarly situated individuals. However, as discussed above,

the more recent country conditions evidence does not reflect

persecution of Mann Party members and Sikhs by the Congress

Party. To the extent he asserts a pattern or practice of

persecution from other groups, as the Government noted, he

did not exhaust that claim before the agency. See Lin Zhong

v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

(2d Cir. 2007)

(holding that “usually . . . issues not raised to the BIA

will not be examined by the reviewing court”).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

5 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

stays VACATED.

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

6