Amoritpal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitioned the Fifth Circuit for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to uphold an Immigration Judge's denial of his asylum and Convention Against Torture (CAT) claims. Singh argued that he suffered past persecution based on his political opinion and affiliation with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and that he had a well-founded fear of future persecution. He also contended that the Immigration Judge violated his due process rights by not providing a full and fair hearing after a prior remand. The government raised the issue of exhaustion regarding the due process claim.
The Fifth Circuit applied the substantial evidence standard to the BIA's factual findings, noting that it would not disturb the decision unless the evidence compelled a contrary conclusion. Regarding the asylum claim, the court found Singh's assertion without merit because he failed to demonstrate that the harm he suffered rose to an extreme level of conduct. Citing Eduard v. Ashcroft, the court reiterated that harassment, mere threats, and minor violence do not qualify as past persecution. Furthermore, the court rejected Singh's argument that the BJP's control of India implied government persecution, stating that a bare assertion of the ruling party's dominance is insufficient to prove government sponsorship or unwillingness to protect. On the CAT claim, the court noted that Singh abandoned his challenge by failing to address the BIA's specific reasons for denying relief. Finally, the court declined to consider the due process argument because Singh failed to exhaust that claim before the BIA, and the government properly raised the exhaustion defense.
The decision affirms the denial of asylum and CAT protection, leaving Singh without relief in the United States. It reinforces the high bar for establishing past persecution, requiring more than harassment or minor violence. The ruling also serves as a reminder that due process claims must be fully exhausted before the BIA to be considered by the appellate courts.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download