Kamalpal Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16489
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Singh, a 51-year-old Indian citizen, fled physical abuse by Punjabi police and sought asylum in the U.S.
- Police interrogated Singh about Khan, Singh’s domestic worker, accusing Khan of terrorism and Singh of aiding terrorists.
- Singh was beaten and hung during two separate detentions; bribes were paid to secure release both times.
- The IJ found Singh credible but denied asylum and withholding of removal; CAT relief was granted.
- BIA affirmed CAT relief but concluded no nexus to a protected ground for asylum; it rejected imputed political opinion as central reason.
- Singh petitioned for review; the court held Singh is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal, remanding for discretionary relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imputed political opinion was a central reason for persecution | Singh argues police imputed antigovernment views to him, creating nexus. | Government/agency contends no central nexus; legitimate investigative motive predominates. | Yes; central nexus shown (imputed political opinion). |
| Dinu v. Ashcroft’s relevance to this case | Dinu is distinguishable; here direct evidence ties abuse to imputed opinion. | Dinu controls or limits imputed-opinion analysis when investigation is legitimate. | No; Dinu not controlling; case fact pattern supports imputed-opinion nexus. |
| Whether remand under Ventura is necessary | Remand not necessary because nexus and CAT relief mirror refugee-determination evidence. | Ventura remand preferable for separate asylum and withholding determinations. | Remand unnecessary; Court remands for discretionary asylum relief and withholding under CAT. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kumar v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2006) (imputed political opinion recognized; nexus required)
- Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2008) (REAL ID Act central-reason standard; mixed-motive permissible)
- Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2004) (limits applicability when there is no direct/imputed-opinion nexus)
- Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2011) (direct statements by persecutors establish motive)
- Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2008) (relationship-based imputed opinions can establish nexus)
- Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2000) (defers to motive related to protected ground; association evidence)
- Yan Xia Zhu v. Mukasey, 537 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2008) (protective-ground nexus via imputed opinions tied to conduct)
- Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482 (9th Cir. 1997) (credible evidence standard for nexus to protected ground)