Ranjit Singh v. Merrick Garland
19-70396
| 9th Cir. | Feb 14, 2022Background:
- Petitioner Ranjit Singh, an Indian national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; an IJ denied relief and the BIA affirmed.
- Singh alleges police interest in him: police demanded money from a friend, police beat that friend, and police visited Singh’s mother.
- Singh himself was never arrested, never physically harmed, and was not personally threatened by police.
- Singh submitted documentary country reports (IRB of Canada) but those reports were not submitted to the IJ and thus were not considered by the BIA.
- The BIA concluded Singh failed to show past persecution or a well‑founded fear of future persecution, and failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured if removed.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and denied Singh’s petition for review.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Past persecution on account of a protected ground | Singh: cumulative incidents (police actions, friend’s beating, visits to mother) amount to past persecution | Government: Singh suffered no physical harm, arrest, or threats; friend’s beating doesn’t compel finding of persecution | Substantial evidence supports BIA that Singh did not show past persecution |
| Well‑founded fear of future persecution | Singh: police extortion of friend and visits to mother show future risk to him | Government: evidence is not credible, direct, or specific and does not show police targeted Singh | Substantial evidence supports BIA that Singh lacks objectively reasonable fear |
| CAT relief (risk of torture) | Singh: speculation police will harm him plus mother’s interactions and country reports show risk | Government: record lacks proof that torture is more likely than not | Substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief |
| Consideration of foreign country reports | Singh: IRB of Canada reports support his claim | Government: reports were not before the IJ; BIA need not consider them | BIA not required to consider reports not before the IJ; they do not compel relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Velasquez‑Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062 (rebuttable presumption of future persecution after past persecution)
- Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172 (ask whether cumulative incidents rise to level of persecution)
- Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052 (lack of arrest or physical harm weighs against past persecution finding)
- Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012 (third‑party harm not dispositive of petitioner’s persecution)
- Duarte de Guinac v. INS, 179 F.3d 1156 (applicant must present credible, direct, specific evidence of future persecution)
- Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279 (standard for CAT review)
- Delgado‑Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148 (speculation and indirect evidence insufficient to show likelihood of torture)