Narinder Singh v. Matthew Whitaker
914 F.3d 654
| 9th Cir. | 2019

Background

  • Narinder Pal Singh, an Indian national and member of the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar (Mann Party), was arrested and beaten multiple times by Punjabi police and attacked by Congress Party members between 2008–2012 for his political activity; he required hospital treatment and fled India in November 2012, entering the U.S. in January 2013.
  • After an asylum officer found Singh had a credible fear, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; the Immigration Judge (IJ) credited his testimony but denied relief, finding Singh could safely and reasonably relocate outside the state of Punjab.
  • The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ, relying on country-conditions evidence (including a Law Library of Congress report) that low-level Mann Party members are unlikely to be targeted outside Punjab and that the Punjabi police would pursue primarily high‑profile militants.
  • Singh moved to reconsider, arguing the BIA failed to identify a specific relocation area, improperly assumed he could cease political activity, and misapplied relocation reasonableness factors; the BIA denied reconsideration.
  • The Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA decision: it held the BIA erred by failing to conduct an individualized relocation analysis regarding whether Singh could safely and reasonably relocate outside Punjab, and remanded the asylum and withholding claims; it denied review of humanitarian asylum and CAT claims, finding substantial evidence supported the BIA on those issues.

Issues

Issue Singh's Argument Government's Argument Held
Whether DHS/BIA met burden to show safe internal relocation BIA failed to identify a specific safe area and did not analyze risks from non‑Punjabi actors if Singh continued political activity DHS may propose a general area ("outside Punjab") and country evidence shows low risk to low‑profile members outside Punjab DHS may propose a general area, but BIA must perform an individualized, reasoned analysis; remand because BIA failed to do so
Whether relocation would be reasonable given Singh's intent to continue pro‑Khalistan activity Relocation is unreasonable if Singh would still be persecuted elsewhere due to continuing political activity; BIA improperly assumed he could be silenced Evidence shows police pursue mostly high‑profile militants; relocation reasonable given Singh’s skills and lack of nationwide targeting proof BIA erred by not addressing risk from local actors and Singh’s intent to continue activism; remand for reassessment of reasonableness
Withholding of removal (clear probability standard) Withholding should be granted because remand may show inability to relocate and substantial risk on return Denial justified because BIA found internal relocation possible Remanded with asylum claim because BIA’s inadequate relocation analysis supports reopening withholding analysis
Humanitarian asylum and CAT protection Singh argued past torture and country conditions justify humanitarian asylum and CAT relief BIA’s factual findings that past abuse did not rise to "atrocious" level and CAT standard not met are supported by record Denied: substantial evidence supports BIA’s denial of humanitarian asylum and CAT relief

Key Cases Cited

  • Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2006) (scope of review of BIA decisions)
  • Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2011) (substantial‑evidence standard for factual findings)
  • Garcia‑Martinez v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) (past persecution creates rebuttable presumption of well‑founded fear)
  • Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal relocation: safety and reasonableness framework)
  • Tendean v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2007) (relocation defined as outside small home village upheld)
  • Kaiser v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 653 (9th Cir. 2004) (evaluating specific relocation locales)
  • Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2003) (nationwide presumption when persecution is by government)
  • Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2004) (remand for failure to apply 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3) factors)
  • Lal v. INS, 255 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2001) (humanitarian asylum requires extremely severe persecution)
  • Kebede v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2004) (humanitarian asylum standard and examples)
  • Hanna v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2007) (past torture may still be insufficient for humanitarian asylum)
  • Marcu v. INS, 147 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (denial of humanitarian asylum affirmed in similar factual context)
  • Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2005) (CAT factors: past torture, internal relocation, country conditions)
  • Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (substantial evidence can support denial of CAT relief despite past beatings)
Read the full case