SINGH V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS III, No. 04-75870 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GURKAMAL SINGH, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 04-75870 Agency No. A075-314-259 v. MEMORANDUM * JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Gurkamal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if Singh was credible and suffered past persecution, conditions for Sikhs in India have changed such that Singh no longer has an objectively reasonable well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2003) (agency rationally construed country report and provided an individualized analysis of how changed conditions will affect petitioner’s specific situation). Thus, Singh’s asylum claim fails. Because Singh failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, it necessarily follows that he failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Singh’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more like than not he would be tortured if returned to India. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1288-89 (9th Cir. 2008). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 04-75870
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
