Singh v. Bondi
23-6074
2d Cir.Jun 3, 2025Background
- Sarbjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief in the U.S., claiming persecution and torture by members of the Badal Party in India.
- Singh alleged he was beaten twice by Badal Party members, purportedly due to his political affiliations.
- The Immigration Judge denied all forms of relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed that decision.
- Singh petitioned for review by the Second Circuit, arguing the Indian government was unable or unwilling to protect him.
- Singh’s claims relied on alleged insufficient police protection, asserted alliances between the Badal Party and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and risks of future torture if returned.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the IJ's decision as supplemented by the BIA and denied Singh’s petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Government protection from persecution | Indian govt. unable or unwilling | Govt. not shown unable/unwilling; some attempts at redress | Singh failed to meet burden; evidence insufficient |
| Connection between political parties | Badal Party aligned with BJP = state action | Party not equivalent to government | Alignment irrelevant absent inability/unwillingness of govt. |
| Sufficiency of past harm for torture | Prior beatings = past torture | Harm not severe or lasting enough; lacked state involvement | Evidence did not establish torture under CAT |
| Government acquiescence under CAT | Police inaction = state acquiescence | Evidence showed attempts to address corruption and protect citizens | No proof of likely future torture/acquiescence by govt |
Key Cases Cited
- Scarlett v. Barr, 957 F.3d 316 (2d Cir. 2020) (defines government responsibility for controlling private persecution and the test for unwilling/unable standard)
- Pan v. Holder, 777 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 2015) (elaborates standards on government action vs. private violence for asylum)
- Singh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106 (2d Cir. 2021) (addresses when political party violence is attributable to the government)
- Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2004) (sets standard for government acquiescence under CAT)
- Pierre v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2007) (private actor torture and government responsibility under CAT)
- Kyaw Zwar Tun v. U.S. INS, 445 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 2006) (differentiating persecution from torture severity under CAT)
- Jian Qiu Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 820 (2d Cir. 2011) (harm must have lasting effect to be considered persecution)
- Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2006) (criteria for physical harm as persecution)