Singh v. Sessions, 898 F.3d 518

Karmjot Singh, a 21-year-old Sikh and member of the Mann Party from Punjab, India, was assaulted twice by local Congress Party members after joining the Mann Party; he suffered injuries and reported the attacks to police, who failed to protect him.
After threats continued, Singh hid with an uncle in Jalandhar for two weeks and stayed two days in Delhi before fleeing India and entering the United States via Mexico; he was detained and removal proceedings began.
An Immigration Judge (IJ) found Singh credible and that he suffered past persecution on account of his political opinion, but concluded DHS rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution by showing Singh could safely and reasonably relocate within India.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, relying on Singh's limited successful short-term relocations (hiding with uncle; two days in Delhi), his education, and general country materials submitted by Singh.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo legal conclusions and for substantial evidence factual findings and found the administrative record lacked DHS evidence specific to whether Singh, as a Mann Party Sikh, could safely and reasonably relocate to a particular area in India.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DHS rebutted presumption that Singh has a well-founded fear of future persecution by showing safe, reasonable internal relocation within India	Singh argued DHS did not meet its burden; record contains only generalized country reports and Singh’s isolated short-term hiding that do not show a specific safe area	DHS (and IJ/BIA) argued relocation would be possible and reasonable based on Singh’s prior moves, brief hiding in Jalandhar and Delhi, education, and country reports	Court held DHS failed to produce substantial evidence to rebut the presumption; remanded for agency to exercise discretion on asylum claim
Whether petitioner abandoned claims for CAT relief and withholding of removal	Singh did not contest denial of CAT/withholding on appeal	Government maintained those were properly denied	Court treated them as abandoned and did not consider them further

Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588 (5th Cir.) (standard for reviewing BIA/IJ findings)
Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590 (5th Cir.) (substantial-evidence review discussion)
Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354 (5th Cir.) (substantial-evidence standard)
Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830 (5th Cir.) (relocation-to-hiding cannot prove reasonable internal relocation)
Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157 (3d Cir.) (relocation must abate risk of persecution)
Das v. Gonzales, [citation="219 F. App'x 543"] (7th Cir.) (country reports insufficient where they do not show localized risk or that relocation would be reasonable)