Singh v. Holder, Jr., No. 10-71999 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a native and citizen of India, petitioned for review of the BIA's order concluding that he is ineligible for withholding of removal. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the BIA's determination that the government showed that there has been a fundamental change in circumstances on the treatment of Sikhs in India to overcome the presumption that he would be persecuted if he were removed. The evidence introduced by the government was sufficiently individualized to address petitioner's claim that he would be persecuted because of his past involvement with the Akali Dal (Mann) party. The general principle requiring the factfinder and a court of appeals to accept a petitioner's factual contentions as true in the absence of an adverse credibility finding does not prevent the court from considering the relative probative value of hearsay and nonhearsay testimony. The agency properly performed its core functions of weighing conflicting evidence, bringing its expertise to bear, and articulating the rationale underlying its decision. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel denied a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of withholding of removal. The panel held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that the government had carried its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that there had been a fundamental change in circumstances with respect to the treatment of Sikhs and supporters of Khalistan in India so as to overcome the presumption that petitioner would be persecuted if he were removed. The panel explained that the agency properly conducted an individualized analysis of the changed country conditions as they related to petitioner’s claims. The panel further explained that the agency is permitted to consider the relative probative value of hearsay and non-hearsay evidence, and in this case, the agency appropriately weighed the country reports against petitioner’s testimony and the affidavits submitted by family members and a village sarpanch stating that Indian police continue to search for him. Dissenting, District Judge Gettleman would grant the petition because the agency failed to conduct an individualized analysis of changed conditions, specifically as they relate to an individual such as petitioner who was persecuted by police in the past; the agency incorrectly shifted the burden of proof to petitioner rather than the government; and substantial evidence did not support the finding of changed country conditions.
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.