Billa Singh v. Merrick Garland
20-70282
| 9th Cir. | Jun 14, 2021Background
- Petitioner Billa Singh, a citizen of India, sought adjustment of status and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- An Immigration Judge (IJ) pretermitted Singh’s adjustment application for failure to timely file supporting documents and to prove payment of the filing fee; the IJ also denied CAT relief.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Singh’s appeal, adopting the IJ’s decision.
- Singh argued on appeal that he had filed attachments and that the BIA failed to consider supplemental evidence; he also asserted past police unwillingness to help and police comments suggesting risk of future harm.
- The IJ found Singh’s testimony only “marginally credible” and relied on country-condition reports that did not show a likelihood of torture; the Ninth Circuit held the record does not compel a finding of likely torture.
- The Ninth Circuit denied Singh’s petition for review, concluding he forfeited his challenge to the pretermission for failing to specifically argue it, and that substantial evidence supported denial of CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Singh's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forfeiture of challenge to IJ’s pretermission of adjustment application | Singh contends he submitted attachments and supplemental briefs that the BIA failed to consider | Singh failed to specifically and distinctly raise the issue on appeal | Singh forfeited the claim for review for failure to adequately argue it on appeal |
| Denial of CAT relief (likelihood of torture by or with acquiescence of officials) | Police were unwilling to help and made comments showing risk; records/supporting evidence show danger if returned | IJ credibility finding and country-condition reports show no likelihood of torture; substantial evidence supports denial | Substantial evidence supports denial; IJ’s credibility finding and reports preclude relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for BIA adopting IJ and review framework)
- Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2003) (forfeiture for failure to specifically and distinctly argue an issue on appeal)
- Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming denial of CAT relief where testimony found not credible and country reports did not compel a finding of likely torture)