Sukhpreet Singh v. Merrick Garland
20-72158
| 9th Cir. | Jun 23, 2021Background
- Petitioner Sukhpreet Singh, an Indian national and member/supporter of the Shiromani Akali Dal Mann Party and Khalistan separatist movement, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- Singh reported two short beatings by opposition party members (each lasting minutes) and claimed fear of future harm from political opponents.
- The IJ denied relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Singh petitioned this court. Jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
- The IJ and BIA weighed country‑condition reports against a more recent State Department report showing no systematic violence against Mann Party supporters and noted a change in Punjab’s governing party since 2015.
- Record evidence showed little indicating assailants retained an ongoing interest in Singh; his family remained in India and continued Mann Party activities without interruption.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed legal issues de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Past persecution: whether Singh suffered persecution | Singh: two beatings and threats cumulatively amounted to past persecution | Gov: incidents were brief and did not rise to persecution | Held: No past persecution; harm not severe enough |
| Future individualized risk: whether Singh faces a real probability of future persecution | Singh: prior assaults and country reports show risk | Gov: recent reports and changed circumstances undercut individualized risk | Held: Substantial evidence supports finding no individualized risk |
| Pattern-or-practice: whether there is a systematic risk to Mann Party supporters | Singh: country reports show recurring political violence | Gov: State Dept report and change in Punjab government weigh against a pattern | Held: Substantial evidence supports finding no pattern-or-practice |
| Relief standards: applicability to withholding and CAT claims given failure to show persecution/risk | Singh: past/future risk supports asylum, withholding, CAT | Gov: higher standards for withholding and CAT unmet once persecution/future risk not shown | Held: Asylum, withholding, and CAT denied (standards not met) |
Key Cases Cited
- Aden v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.) (jurisdictional and review standards for immigration appeals)
- Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir.) (two beatings and threats insufficient to compel finding of past persecution)
- Gu v. Gonzalez, 454 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir.) (limited detention/interrogation insufficient to compel past‑persecution finding)
- Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281 (9th Cir.) (agency entitled to weigh competing country‑condition evidence)
- Gonzalez‑Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995 (9th Cir.) (appellate deference to agency fact‑finding on country conditions)
- Sanjaa v. Sessions, 863 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir.) (withholding requires more‑likely‑than‑not risk standard)
- Robleto‑Pastora v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.) (explicating withholding standard)
- Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir.) (torture standard is more severe than persecution)