Chanpreet Kaur v. Robert Wilkinson, 986 F.3d 1216

Chanpreet Kaur, a Punjab, India native, joined the Mann Party (pro‑Khalistan) in 2015 and faced political harassment.
In October 2016, a group of men identified as Congress Party members dragged Kaur from her parents’ shop into the street, attempted to gang‑rape her, ripped her clothes, and caused injuries requiring medical attention.
Before and after the attack Kaur received threats; Congress agents later threatened to kill her, tracked and beat her father, and police beat both parents when told she was in the U.S.
An IJ found Kaur credible but denied asylum, concluding the sexual assault and threats did not amount to past persecution and that perpetrators were not government actors or beyond government control; the BIA affirmed and required evidence of ongoing psychological harm.
The Ninth Circuit reversed: attempted gang rape alone can be past persecution without additional evidence of psychological treatment, and remanded for the BIA to address whether persecutors were government actors and to apply the correct internal‑relocation burden.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the attempted gang rape constitutes past persecution	Kaur: attempted gang rape is a severe attack on bodily integrity and therefore persecution	Gov: the conduct was not severe enough or not attributable to the government	Held: Attempted gang rape is almost always persecution; Kaur’s attack alone suffices
Whether BIA may require evidence of ongoing psychological harm or treatment	Kaur: no heightened evidentiary requirement; the assault itself suffices	Gov: BIA required evidence of ongoing harm to show persecution	Held: BIA erred; requiring proof of psychological treatment is improper and minimizes the assault
Whether the persecutors were government actors or forces the government could not control	Kaur: attackers were Congress Party agents/government actors	Gov: attackers were private citizens and police could have protected her	Held: BIA failed to address Kaur’s government‑actor claim; remand for consideration of the record and legal standards
Burden on internal relocation after past persecution	Kaur: if past persecution established, burden shifts to government to show safe internal relocation	Gov: Kaur didn’t prove she could not relocate	Held: Court remanded: under Singh v. Whitaker the government must prove reasonable internal relocation; BIA must perform individualized analysis

Bringas‑Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2017) (elements for establishing past persecution)
Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2018) (definition and hallmarks of persecution)
Lopez‑Galarza v. INS, 99 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 1996) (rape and sexual violence as an atrocious form of persecution)
Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799 (9th Cir. 2004) (attempted murder can constitute persecution)
Reyes‑Guerrero v. INS, 192 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 1999) (persecution by party that rises to power may be treated as government persecution)
Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2019) (burden on government to show internal relocation is reasonable after past persecution)
Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2005) (torture and analogous severe conduct as a fortiori persecution)
Ali v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 780 (9th Cir. 2005) (sexual violence as a means of domination and control)
Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2010) (framework for third‑prong government/unwillingness or inability to control perpetrators)