Background
Petitioner Surinder Singh sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge found that Singh had suffered past persecution by Punjab police due to his political affiliation with the Shiromani Akali Dal Simranjit Mann party but concluded that he could safely relocate within India. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed this decision.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that the agency’s relocation analysis was inadequate because it relied almost exclusively on evidence regarding the treatment of Sikhs in general rather than members of the specific political party. The court noted that the agency failed to address the petitioner’s stated intent to continue advocating for his party upon relocation and did not consider potential harm from local authorities outside of Punjab. The court found that substantial evidence did not support the agency’s determination that the petitioner could safely and reasonably relocate. However, the court found that substantial evidence supported the denial of Convention Against Torture relief.
The dissent
Because substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding, I would deny the petition for review in full.
Miller
What it means going forward
The case is remanded to the agency to conduct a sufficiently individualized relocation analysis regarding the petitioner’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, while the denial of Convention Against Torture relief stands.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download