BALBIR SINGH V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-73683 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BALBIR SINGH, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-73683 Agency No. A070-970-501 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of an Immigration Judge’s Decision Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Balbir Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and thus is not entitled to relief from his administrative removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. * 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). § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings. AndradeGarcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Singh failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 2011) (mistreatment motivated purely by personal retribution does not bear a nexus to a protected ground); Gonzalez v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 338 (9th Cir. 2011) (testimony of petitioner’s belief that relocation would not be safe or reasonable was, by itself, insufficient to meet petitioner’s burden of proof). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Singh failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836-37. We reject, as unsupported by the record, Singh’s contentions that the IJ violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-73683
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.
