Ajay Pal Singh, a native and citizen of India, entered the United States without inspection in 2015 and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Singh testified that he worked for the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar (Mann party), a group advocating for a sovereign Sikh state, and was repeatedly attacked by members of opposing parties, the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Shiromani Akali Dal Badal party. In late 2014 and mid-2015, he received threatening phone calls and was beaten twice with weapons, sustaining injuries that required hospitalization. He fled India after attackers threatened to kill him if he resumed his political work. The Immigration Judge denied his claims, finding the harm did not rise to the level of persecution and that he could safely relocate within India. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, adopting the Immigration Judge's reasoning and concluding that even if past persecution existed, the government had met its burden to show Singh could relocate safely.
The Ninth Circuit analyzed the case in three parts. First, regarding past persecution, the court determined that the record compelled the conclusion that Singh suffered harm rising to the level of persecution. The court distinguished Singh's case from precedents involving isolated incidents, noting that he faced multiple physical attacks and specific death threats over an eight-month period, was forced to flee his home, and that his family was also harassed. This pattern of violence, combined with the political context in Punjab, satisfied the legal standard for past persecution. Second, because past persecution was established, the burden shifted to the government to rebut the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution by showing Singh could safely relocate. The court found the Board of Immigration Appeals erred by adopting the Immigration Judge's analysis, which had incorrectly placed the burden on Singh to prove he could not relocate. The Board failed to conduct a reasoned, individualized analysis of whether Singh could safely relocate given his stated intent to continue proselytizing for his party wherever he went. The court held that the government's evidence, which focused on Singh's low-level status, was insufficient to rebut the presumption without specifically addressing the risks of his continued political advocacy in other regions of India. Third, regarding the Convention Against Torture, the court found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Singh did not suffer past torture and that there was no evidence he would face future torture inflicted or acquiesced to by public officials.
The case is remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals to conduct a new, reasoned analysis of whether Singh can safely relocate within India, specifically addressing his intent to continue his political advocacy. The government must now demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Singh can avoid future persecution in another part of India. The denial of Convention Against Torture relief stands, meaning Singh cannot claim protection under that specific statute based on the current record. The decision clarifies that when past persecution is found, the burden to prove safe internal relocation rests with the government, and that analysis must be individualized to the petitioner's future conduct.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download