GURPREET SINGH V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-72041 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GURPREET SINGH, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-72041 Petitioner, Agency No. A201-295-482 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Gupreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial * 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). evidence the agency's factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 118485 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, although Singh established past persecution, the government rebutted Singh’s presumed wellfounded fear of future persecution with evidence that he could safely and reasonably relocate within India to avoid harm. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3); Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2003). We reject Singh’s contentions that the agency’s relocation analysis was insufficient and that the BIA failed to adequately address his argument that the IJ’s analysis was insufficient. Thus, his asylum claim fails. In this case, because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-72041

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.