Paraminderpal Singh v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PARAMINDERPAL SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70487
16-71008
Agency No. A095-576-383
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 29, 2018**
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Paraminderpal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for protection under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), as well as the BIA’s denial of Singh’s
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
OCT 3 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
motions to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the
petition.
To prevail on a claim for CAT relief, a petitioner must show that, more
likely than not, he or she will be tortured upon removal from the United States.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17. We review denials of CAT relief for substantial evidence
and “will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative
evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d
1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations and quotation marks omitted). The BIA’s
“findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. Singh argues
that, if removed to India, he would more likely than not be tortured by police (or
vigilante groups with tacit approval of the police) because of his uncle’s
involvement with the Khalistan movement and because of Singh’s tattoos that
could be interpreted as supporting the Khalistan movement. Evidence in the record
indicated that families of militants are no longer targeted by the police, Singh was
never harmed or sought out by police, and Singh was never involved in the
Khalistan movement. The BIA and IJ also considered the treatment of Singh’s
family in the determination that Singh did not meet his burden for CAT relief.
Considered as a whole, the evidence does not “compel” the conclusion that Singh

-- 2 of 3 --

3
will more likely than not be tortured by the police if removed to India. See id.
The BIA did not err in rejecting Singh’s ineffective assistance of counsel
claim because Singh failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of
Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and his counsel’s alleged ineffective
assistance was not “clear” from the record, see Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d
518, 526 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --