Daya Singh v. William Barr
935 F.3d 822
| 9th Cir. | 2019Background
- In Punjab, India (2007) police detained petitioner Daya Singh after a shooting; his co-detainee Tasvir Singh later disappeared after confronting officers.
- Singh told Tasvir’s lawyers he had seen Tasvir argue with officers; that statement was recorded and sent to higher officials.
- Local officers then forced Singh to recant, physically abused him, threatened disappearance, and coerced signed papers; senior officers secured a coerced recantation.
- Singh left India, entered the U.S. without inspection, and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. DHS initiated removal proceedings; the IJ denied relief after applying Matter of N–M–, and the BIA affirmed.
- Singh appealed, challenging Matter of N–M– as inconsistent with the INA, arguing the facts compelled asylum/withholding relief, and arguing the BIA applied the wrong nexus standard for withholding.
Issues
| Issue | Singh’s Argument | Barr’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Matter of N–M– (three-factor whistleblower test) is an unreasonable interpretation of the INA | N–M– imposes an onerous, improper burden and misinterprets asylum statute | N–M– aligns with Ninth Circuit whistleblowing precedents and is a permissible interpretation | Court upheld Matter of N–M– as reasonable and entitled to deference |
| Whether Singh’s mistreatment was persecution on account of an imputed political opinion (anticorruption/whistleblowing) | His statement to lawyers and the officers’ threats show they imputed anti-police/anti-corruption views and persecuted him for that opinion | Officers acted from personal revenge/exposure of wrongdoing, not political motive; Singh didn’t take steps to publicize corruption | Substantial evidence supported BIA/IJ that Singh failed all three N–M– factors; asylum denied |
| Whether the BIA applied the correct nexus standard for withholding of removal | BIA used the “one central reason” (asylum) standard instead of the lesser “a reason” standard required for withholding; remand required | Although BIA cited the wrong standard, it adopted the IJ’s finding of no nexus, so remand would be futile | Court agreed BIA misapplied the wording but declined to remand because result would not change |
| Whether Singh established eligibility for CAT protection | Singh argued he would likely be tortured if returned | Government argued Singh could reasonably relocate within India and failed to show likelihood of torture | Substantial evidence supported BIA’s denial of CAT relief; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Grava v. INS, 205 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2000) (whistleblowing can constitute political activity when targeted at governmental institutions)
- Khudaverdyan v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2015) (distinguishes opposition to systemic corruption from exposure of rogue officials)
- Fedunyak v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2007) (similar principles on whistleblowing as political opinion)
- Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2014) (persecutor’s motive is critical; single ambiguous statements may not compel reversal)
- Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) (withholding requires showing the protected ground was “a reason” for persecution)
- INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999) (BIA entitled to Chevron deference in reasonable statutory interpretations)
- NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759 (1969) (courts need not remand where doing so would be an idle formality)