Singh v. Lynch
657 F. App'x 64
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Varinder Singh, an Indian national and Sikh, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after claiming he and family members received threats tied to Sikh religion and his support for the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar (SADA).
- Singh’s asserted past harms included unfulfilled threats after political rallies and historical harm his father suffered when Singh was a child.
- Singh submitted letters from family, friends, and SADA, and country‑conditions evidence including State Department reports and newspaper articles; his father returned to India in 2011 without reporting problems.
- The Immigration Judge denied relief for failure to show past persecution or a well‑founded fear of future persecution; the BIA affirmed.
- Singh petitioned this Court for review; the Second Circuit reviewed both IJ and BIA decisions and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Singh suffered past persecution | Singh: Unfulfilled threats, past family harm, and cumulative incidents amount to past persecution | Govt: Incidents were limited, unfulfilled threats or childhood harms that do not rise above harassment | Court: No past persecution; threats were unfulfilled and harms not sufficiently severe |
| Whether Singh has a well‑founded fear of future persecution | Singh: Threats and country conditions show risk due to religion and political support | Govt: Letters were from interested witnesses; country conditions do not show current systemic targeting; similarly situated relatives safe | Court: No objective reasonable fear; evidence insufficient to show he would be singled out |
| Whether there is a pattern or practice of persecuting similarly situated Sikhs/SADA supporters | Singh: Historical abuses and articles demonstrate ongoing risk | Govt: Country‑condition evidence shows serious abuses in 1980s–1990s but not current systemic persecution | Court: No pattern or practice shown; evidence addresses past decades, not present pervasive harm |
| Whether denial of asylum also forecloses withholding and CAT relief | Singh: Same factual basis supports withholding and CAT relief | Govt: Withholding/CAT require same or higher showing; predicate not met | Court: Denial of asylum dispositive; withholding and CAT denied on same record |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (review of IJ and BIA decisions)
- Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2005) (aggregate consideration of harms for past persecution)
- Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2006) (non‑life‑threatening abuse can be persecution if severe)
- Gui Ci Pan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 449 F.3d 408 (2d Cir. 2006) (unfulfilled threats do not constitute persecution)
- Jorge‑Tzoc v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2006) (age can be critical when assessing past harm)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (weight of documentary evidence lies with agency)
- Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2008) (applicant must show authorities are or will be aware of activities)
- Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 1999) (fear diminished when similarly situated individuals live unharmed)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (asylum findings dispositive of withholding and CAT when same predicate)