Singh v. Holder, Jr., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8154

Pritpal Singh, an Indian national who entered the U.S. unlawfully in 2003, applied for asylum and withholding of removal in April 2003; asylum office denied his claim in April 2005 and a Notice to Appear issued in May 2005.
Singh testified before an Immigration Judge that he was arrested twice in India (1999), beaten by police, questioned about Sikh separatism and his cousin’s activities, and released after bribes were paid; he later lived in Delhi for several months and obtained travel documents before ultimately coming to the U.S.
The IJ denied relief primarily on credibility grounds (noting a discrepancy between the written application and testimony about beatings) and for lack of corroboration and failure to show past persecution or a well‑founded fear of future persecution.
The IJ alternatively concluded Singh could avoid persecution by relocating within India (noting his travel to and residence in Delhi and ability to obtain a passport/visa), and the BIA affirmed without error.
Singh did not press his Convention Against Torture claim on appeal; the petition for review challenges the BIA’s adverse credibility and alternative conclusions but does not contest findings about internal relocation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Singh’s testimony was credible	Singh contends his testimony (including beatings after both arrests) is true and consistent with submitted materials	Govt. points to discrepancies between written application and later testimony and lack of corroboration	BIA’s adverse credibility finding upheld (court assumes facts for analysis but agrees BIA did not err)
Whether Singh established past persecution	Singh argues beatings and arrests amounted to persecution	Govt. argues mistreatment did not rise to severity of persecution and lacked corroboration	BIA/IJ found mistreatment insufficient to show past persecution; court accepts BIA’s conclusion
Whether Singh has a well‑founded fear of future persecution	Singh claims continued risk due to police interest and cousin’s activism	Govt argues Singh’s ability to relocate within India (stay in Delhi) and obtain travel documents shows fear not well‑founded	Court and BIA held internal relocation was reasonable; Singh waived challenge and asylum denied
Whether withholding of removal follows from asylum denial	Singh seeks withholding based on risk of future persecution	Govt notes withholding has higher standard and internal relocation negates claim	Court held withholding also denied because it requires a stricter showing and internal relocation negates eligibility

Walker v. Holder, 589 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2009) (review focuses on BIA opinion when BIA issues its own decision)
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (substantial‑evidence standard governs review of BIA factual findings)
Segran v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007) (reversal only when evidence compels contrary conclusion)
Laurent v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2004) (same standard on review)
Jutus v. Holder, 723 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2013) (elements of asylum: five protected grounds and past persecution presumption)
Maryam v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2005) (definition of protected grounds for asylum)
Castillo-Diaz v. Holder, 562 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2009) (well‑founded fear requires subjective and objective showing)
Silva v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) (internal relocation may defeat asylum claim when persecution is localized)
Vasili v. Holder, 732 F.3d 83 (1st Cir. 2013) (withholding of removal has higher evidentiary standard than asylum)
Pulisir v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 302 (1st Cir. 2008) (probability standard for withholding)
Usman v. Holder, 566 F.3d 262 (1st Cir. 2009) (issues not contested on appeal are waived)