Singh v. Bondi
130 F.4th 848
10th Cir.2025Background
- Amarjeet Singh, an Indian national and member of the Mann (Sikh nationalist) party, entered the U.S. illegally in 2017 and sought asylum, claiming past persecution and a lack of government protection in India due to his political affiliation.
- Singh described multiple incidents: a wrongful arrest and police abuse in 2000 (purportedly at the behest of rival political party, Badal), and two attacks in 2017 by opposition party members.
- Singh argued that the Indian police, influenced by political rivals, were either unable or unwilling to protect him from private actors.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied asylum, finding Singh failed to prove past persecution or that the Indian government was unable/unwilling to protect him; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed.
- Singh sought review in the Tenth Circuit, arguing the BIA misapplied the "unable-or-unwilling" standard and that his evidence compelled a favorable finding.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed only whether the BIA misinterpreted the standard and whether its factual findings were supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the BIA misinterpret the unable-or-unwilling standard? | BIA only considered willingness, not ability, to protect. | BIA considered both willingness and ability, as required. | No misinterpretation; BIA properly considered both aspects. |
| Did the evidence compel a finding for Singh on protection? | Indian govt. had a record of corruption and failed him in 2000/2017. | Govt. responded to wrongful arrest; Singh didn't fully report 2017. | Record does not compel a contrary finding; substantial evidence supports BIA. |
| Was Singh's failure to report 2017 attacks excused? | Reporting was futile/dangerous due to prior mistreatment. | Single unhelpful police response doesn't show futility/danger. | No compelling evidence that reporting would have been futile/dangerous. |
| Did country conditions require a different result? | Human rights abuses and corruption show govt. inability/unwillingness | Reports also show accountability and legal protections exist. | Mixed evidence does not compel finding of inability/unwillingness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Niang v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2005) (establishes asylum applicant's burden to show persecution by the government or private actors the government is unable or unwilling to control)
- Rivera-Barrientos v. Holder, 666 F.3d 641 (10th Cir. 2012) (discusses the definition of "refugee" and protected grounds for asylum)
- Ritonga v. Holder, 633 F.3d 971 (10th Cir. 2011) (articulates persecution standard and considers government response to private violence)
- Vicente-Elias v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir. 2008) (establishes that whether circumstances constitute persecution is a fact question for substantial-evidence review)
- Htun v. Lynch, 818 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2016) (clarifies scope of judicial review when BIA issues a brief order)