PAWAN SINGH-CHAUHAN V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-72856 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 1 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAWAN JOT SINGH-CHAUHAN, AKA Pawanjot Singh, AKA Pawanjot Singh Chauhan, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-72856 Agency No. A205-303-482 MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Pawan Jot Singh-Chauhan, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of * 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). removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and for abuse of discretion the denial of humanitarian asylum, Belayneh v. INS, 213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that, even if SinghChauhan demonstrated past persecution, he could safely relocate in India, and it would be reasonable for him to do so. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B) (asylum); 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B) (withholding of removal); Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1070 (9th Cir. 2003) (presumption overcome where preponderance of the evidence showed applicant could “reasonably relocate internally to an area of safety”); Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1264, 1267 (9th Cir. 2005) (prior relocation without incident supported agency’s finding). We reject his contentions that the agency erred in denying his request for humanitarian asylum in light of his past mistreatment in India, see Marcu v. INS, 147 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 1998), or based on the possibility that he may suffer “other serious harm,” see Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1288 (9th Cir. 2008); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii). Thus, Singh-Chauhan’s asylum, including humanitarian asylum, and withholding of removal claims fail. Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief 2 14-72856 because Singh-Chauhan failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Indian government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 14-72856
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.
