Jagtar Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9424
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Singh, a native and citizen of India, sought withholding of removal after past persecution tied to Sikh identity and Akali Dal (Mann) affiliation.
- He was arrested and beaten by police in 1994, 1995, and 1997 due to pro-Khalistani activities, suffering multiple detentions and coercive interrogations.
- Singh entered the United States without inspection in 1999 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; IJ denied as time-barred and based on credibility findings.
- On remand, the IJ held there had been a fundamental change in India such that Singh would not face future persecution if returned, while the BIA disagreed with the credibility finding but affirmed the change in country conditions.
- The Board relied on country-condition evidence (State Department issue paper, 2007/2008 country reports, UK Home Office guidance, and USCIS reports) to conclude changes in India diminished Singh’s individualized risk.
- The Ninth Circuit previously remanded for further consideration of Singh’s withholding claim, and on remand the IJ again weighed country-condition evidence against Singh’s testimonies and affidavits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding of changed country conditions. | Singh contends evidence shows ongoing, individualized persecution despite general improvements. | The government argues changed conditions rebut the presumption and apply to Singh’s specific situation. | Yes; substantial evidence supports change in circumstances over Singh’s individualized claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krotova v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2005) (presumption of credibility where BIA silent on credibility)
- Kumar v. INS, 204 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2000) (changed country conditions may be found with individual-focused analysis)
- Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2003) (agency may rely on country reports with mixed messages)
- Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency’s interpretation of ambiguous country reports given deference)
- Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281 (9th Cir. 2008) (State Department country reports are central, but not sole evidence)
- Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009) (weighs country reports against whole record, including personal affidavits)
- Sharma v. Holder, 633 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2011) (weighting of hearsay vs. non-hearsay evidence in country-conditions analysis)
- Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799 (9th Cir. 2004) (require individualized determination in changed-country analysis)
- Mutuku v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2010) (limits of generalized country-change claims)
- Singh v. Holder, 372 F.App’x 821 (9th Cir. 2010) (unpublished; relevance to individualized country-condition analysis)