Hardaman Singh v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 01-4381
____________
HARDAMAN SINGH,
Petitioner
v.
John Ashcroft, Attorney General
of the United States,
Respondent
____________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
INS No. A91-540-712
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 2, 2003
Before: BARRY, FUENTES, and ROSENN, Circuit Judges
(Filed July 10, 2003)
____________________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________________________
ROSENN, Circuit Judge.
On March 24, 1994, Singh filed an asylum application with the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS). The INS denied his application and placed him in

-- 1 of 5 --

2
deportation proceedings for remaining in the United States beyond the time previously
authorized by the INS. Singh renewed his asylum application before an Immigration
Judge and sought, inter alia, withholding of removal relief, suspension of deportation,
and voluntary departure, as alternative forms of relief. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied
Singh’s petition for asylum and his application for alternative relief on August 11, 1997 .
The Board affirmed the decision of the IJ. The Board also denied Singh’s motion to
remand, which it treated as a motion to reopen to produce additional evidence. Singh
timely petitioned this court for review. We affirm the Board’s decision including the
order denying remand, and deny Singh’s petition.
We refer only briefly to the facts because they are well known to the parties. The
petitioner is a native and citizen of India. He was admitted to the United States on
September 5, 1988, as a visitor for pleasure with permission to remain until February 4,
1989. He was born in the Punjab, India, on April 30, 1956, belongs to the Sikh religious
community and claims to have been an active member of the “Akali Dahl” group for
some time before he fled India to the United States.
Singh asserts that the relationship between the Hindu-dominant Indian
government and the Sikhs severely deteriorated after the assassination of Indira Gandhi
by her Sikh bodyguard in 1984. He states that Hindu fundamentalist groups burned and
destroyed hundreds of Sikh temples and religious institutions in the Punjab. Numerous
clashes have occurred between the Hindu Shiv Sena members and Sikh political groups in

-- 2 of 5 --

3
Punjab.
Singh claims that he personally was attacked by Shiv Sena supporters after giving
a speech at a meeting on a campus in Ludhiene, Punjab, on an unspecified date. He also
asserts that he was arrested, but that his father arranged for his release the next day.
Singh alleges that he joined a revolutionary Sikh group in 1987 and that on January 10,
1988, a militant group held his parents at gunpoint demanding his appearance. Singh was
not at home, and therefore the group threatened his parents, telling them that he should
surrender to the police. Singh claims he was forced to move to a relative’s house in a
distant village, and then from place to place to avoid arrest. He also claims that the Shiv
Sena listed him for execution and he therefore cannot return unless his name is removed
from the list. He asserts that the Shiv Sena murdered three members of his family, all of
whom were members of the Sikh Revolutionary Group and that his parents arranged for
him to escape to the United States. He contends that if he were to return to India, he
would be kidnaped and killed.
Singh produced no documents to show either his membership in the Akali Dal
political party or to support his membership in the Sikh Revolutionary Group, claiming to
have lost everything. He produced no documents, affidavits, police reports, or other
evidence to support his claim that he owned a business that was destroyed, or any of the
political literature that he claims to have distributed, which he alleges got him into
trouble.

-- 3 of 5 --

4
The State Department reported that in April 1994 the Indian Human Rights
Commission held four days of hearings in the Punjab and found that the militancy had
terminated. Asia Watch and Amnesty International both agreed with the Commission that
such militancy no longer served to explain police excesses. In 1993, the violence in the
Punjab subsided, allowing the economy to revive. The Indian media reported significant
increases in investment in the Punjab in 1993 and the government of India is non-
sectarian. Tolerance for religious beliefs is a tenet of the Indian nation. The government
does not take action against individuals because of their Sikh religion.
The IJ ruled that Singh was removable, that his testimony was not credible, and he
did not prove he was eligible for asylum or withholding of deportation. The judge also
denied his application for suspension of deportation, finding that Singh had not shown
that his deportation would result in extreme hardship to him or to a qualifying family
member. The judge granted his voluntary departure in lieu of deportation.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that substantial evidence supports the
Board’s denial of asylum. Singh has not shown that a reasonable fact finder would have
been compelled to find him credible. He points to no evidence in the record that would
have compelled a reasonable fact finder to believe his testimony. He has failed to submit
a single bit of corroborative evidence and the documents and evidence from the State
Department, Amnesty International, and the Asia Watch all support the conclusion that
conditions in India have stabilized, and that there is no persecution by the government.

-- 4 of 5 --

5
Accordingly, the motion to remand is denied for failure to show that the evidence
tendered now was unavailable at the time of hearing. The Petition for Review is denied.
Each side to bear its own costs.
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Max Rosenn
Circuit Judge

-- 5 of 5 --