Background
Gurdev Singh and his family sought asylum and withholding of removal. An Immigration Judge denied the asylum claim due to firm resettlement in Italy but granted withholding of removal. The family was ordered removed to India. Singh later filed a motion to reopen his asylum claim based on changed country conditions, which the Board of Immigration Appeals denied.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviews denials of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion. The Board may deny such a motion if it is procedurally deficient, fails to establish a prima facie case, or as a matter of discretion. The Board denied Singh’s motion because he failed to establish a prima facie case for relief. Although Singh submitted new evidence regarding country conditions in India, this evidence did not alter the prior determination that he was barred from asylum due to firm resettlement in Italy. Singh acknowledged the firm resettlement bar and made no argument that the new evidence changed that analysis.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.
Bent v. Garland, 115 F.4th 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2024)
What it means going forward
The petition for review is denied, and the stay of removal remains in place only until the mandate issues.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download