11 F.4th 106
2d Cir.2021Background
- Jagdeep Singh, an Indian national, entered the U.S. without documents in 2014, applied for asylum, withholding, and CAT protection, and conceded removability.
- Singh alleged he was assaulted and threatened in Punjab by members of the rival Akali Dal Badal after he joined Akali Dal Amritsar (Akali Dal Mann); he reported a threatening call to police who did not act.
- An IJ found Singh suffered past persecution by party members but concluded the government rebutted the presumption of future persecution by showing Singh could safely and reasonably relocate elsewhere in India.
- The BIA affirmed, relying on country‑conditions reports (lack of a national police database, limited interstate police communication, sizable Sikh populations nationwide) and on Singh’s limited role in the party.
- Singh challenged the BIA’s internal‑relocation and CAT determinations; the Second Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency erred in finding internal relocation in India would avoid future persecution | Singh: country conditions and political alliances make relocation unsafe; mistreatment by party aligned with national power equals government persecution | Govt: evidence shows no nationwide threat, no national registry or police network to track him, and Singh was not a high‑profile target | Held: Agency had substantial evidence that relocation would be safe and reasonable; petition denied |
| Whether mistreatment by members of a political party equates to persecution by the government nationwide | Singh: attackers were aligned with ruling party, so harm was effectively government persecution and thus no safe internal refuge | Govt: private party members are not the government; to attribute persecution to state, govt. must be unwilling/unable to control or have condoned the attacks | Held: Court agreed the record did not show state condonation or inability to control such that the harm was government persecution nationwide |
| Whether general country‑conditions evidence suffices to rebut an internal‑relocation finding | Singh: reports of corruption, police abuse, discrimination show relocation would not protect him | Govt: petitioner must show how country evidence demonstrates that a person in his particular circumstances would face persecution despite relocation | Held: General country evidence alone is insufficient; petitioner must particularize why he personally would remain at risk after relocation |
| Whether CAT relief is available given the relocation finding | Singh: likely torture if removed | Govt: ability to relocate undermines likelihood of torture and no evidence of government acquiescence to torture | Held: CAT claim fails because internal relocation evidence undercuts likelihood of torture; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (substantial‑evidence standard for factual findings)
- Mu Xiang Lin v. DOJ, 432 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2005) (need for particularized evidence on relocation feasibility)
- Garland v. Ming Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669 (2021) (judicial review limited to whether any reasonable adjudicator could reach the agency’s factual findings)
- Pan v. Holder, 777 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 2015) (government unwilling or unable to control private persecutors standard)
- Scarlett v. Barr, 957 F.3d 316 (2d Cir. 2020) (CAT acquiescence standard and discussion of torture by or with acquiescence of officials)
- Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2004) (acquiescence requires government knowledge or willful blindness and breach of duty to prevent)
- Singh v. BIA, 435 F.3d 216 (2d Cir. 2006) (observing that threats to Sikhs/Akali Dal Mann members are not necessarily country‑wide)