Singh v. Holder, No. 10-71677 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Singh, a 51-year-old citizen of India, entered the U.S. in 2006 after egregious physical abuse by the police in Jullandar, Punjab, concerning his employment of a domestic servant alleged to be a Kashmiri terrorist. The BIA affirmed the immigration judge’s decision to grant Singh relief under the Convention Against Torture, but held that an imputed political opinion was not a central reason for the police brutality and denied applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA concluded that the police had legitimate reasons for the arrest and detention. The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review and held that the evidence compelled a conclusion that Singh’s imputed political opinion was at least one central reason police targeted him. Although the REAL ID Act eliminated the presumption that persecution is politically motivated absent any evidence of a legitimate prosecutorial purpose, an applicant may meet his burden of establishing nexus by introducing evidence that he was wrongly accused of being a terrorist. Mixed-motives analysis applies to cases under the REAL ID Act, and, even if police are engaged in a legitimate investigation, an applicant may establish nexus by showing that he was persecuted both because of legitimate investigatory reasons and because of a protected ground, if a protected ground was at least one central reason for the harm.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel granted a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of asylum and withholding of removal to a citizen of India who asserted claims for past persecution and a fear of future persecution by police on account of his imputed political opinion. The panel held that the evidence compelled the conclusion that petitioner’s imputed political opinion was at least one central reason police targeted him where during interrogation police called him a traitor and repeatedly accused him of working against the government. The panel further held that indirect evidence of petitioner’s association with a suspected terrorist supported the conclusion that he was persecuted because of an imputed political opinion. The panel explained that although the REAL ID Act eliminated the presumption that persecution is politically motivated in the absence of any evidence of a legitimate prosecutorial purpose, an applicant may still meet his burden of establishing nexus by introducing evidence that he was wrongly accused of being a terrorist. The panel held that mixed-motives analysis applies to cases governed by the REAL ID Act, and that even if police are engaged in a legitimate investigation, an applicant may establish nexus by showing that he was persecuted both because of legitimate investigatory reasons and because of a protected ground, so long as a protected ground was at least one central reason for the harm. District Judge George concurred with the opinion insofar as it remanded for the granting of relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture. Judge George dissented from the majority’s holding that the evidence compels the conclusion that a central reason for petitioner’s persecution was an imputed political opinion. George wrote that he believes that the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, shows that the reason police targeted petitioner was an effort only to obtain information about a suspected terrorist.
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.