Harbans Singh v. Jefferson Sessions
714 F. App'x 707
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Harbans Singh, an Indian national, petitioned for review after the BIA denied asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on attacks by followers of Dera Sacha Sauda (DSS) who sought to recruit him and extort his land.
- The Immigration Judge made no adverse credibility finding; Singh’s testimony was therefore accepted as true.
- The IJ concluded the attackers were motivated by extortion and recruitment and denied asylum and withholding; the IJ also denied CAT relief.
- The Ninth Circuit panel found the IJ misstated the legal nexus standard for asylum and conflated relocation steps; it held the record suggests Singh’s refusal to join DSS was an act of religious expression.
- The court granted review and remanded asylum and withholding claims for further proceedings, but denied relief as to the CAT claim (finding the record does not compel a different conclusion).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nexus for asylum (protected-ground causation) | Singh: DSS attackers targeted him at least partly because of his religion/political affiliation (refusal to join DSS) | Gov't: attackers motivated by extortion and recruitment (economic/personal motives), not protected ground | Remanded: mixed motives possible; agency must assess whether religion/political affiliation was “one central reason” for persecution |
| Standard for withholding of removal | Singh: his refusal to join DSS shows religion was a reason for persecution | Gov't: motive was not on account of protected ground | Remanded: record may compel finding that religion was “a reason”; agency must reconsider under the lower Barajas‑Romero standard |
| Internal relocation (safety and reasonableness) | Singh: relocation in India may be unsafe/unreasonable given DSS threat | Gov't: Singh could safely and reasonably relocate | Remanded: IJ conflated (1) safety and (2) reasonableness; agency must apply factors correctly and bear burden to prove relocation is safe and reasonable once past persecution shown |
| CAT relief (torture standard) | Singh: attacks and risk from DSS make torture more likely than not | Gov't: evidence does not show likelihood of torture | Denied: substantial evidence supports IJ’s CAT finding; record does not compel reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2010) (nexus requirement for asylum)
- Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (mixed‑motive asylum claims)
- Sangha v. I.N.S., 103 F.3d 1482 (9th Cir. 1997) (forcible recruitment can establish nexus)
- Borja v. I.N.S., 175 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 1999) (extortionate beatings may qualify as persecution on account of political opinion)
- Barajas‑Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) (withholding requires that a protected ground be “a reason”)
- Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2010) (two‑step internal relocation analysis: safety then reasonableness)
- Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2015) (IJ must consider relocation in CAT analysis)
- Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard for reversing factual findings on CAT claims)
- Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2004) (accept testimony as true absent adverse credibility finding)
- Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2013) (REAL ID Act does not preclude recruitment/extortion as protected‑ground motivations)
- Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2014) (CAT burden: more likely than not standard)