Baljinder Singh v. Attorney General of the United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_________
No. 06-4191
_________
BALJINDER SINGH,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A76-143-790)
__________________
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1 (a)
on April 11, 2008
Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 4, 2008)
O P I N I O N

-- 1 of 7 --

2
ROTH, Circuit Judge:
Baljinder Singh seeks review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) that ordered Singh removed from
the United States and denied his application for withholding of removal and protection under
the Convention Against Torture. Singh argues that the IJ erred in making an adverse
credibility finding against him and that the IJ failed to correctly consider the possibility of
future persecution and torture. Finding no error, we will deny the petition for review.
I. BACKGROUND
Singh, a forty-one year old married male, is a Sikh and a native and citizen of India.
On December 5, 1997, Singh entered the United States at New York, New York, as a
nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure with authorization to remain in the United States until June
4, 1998. Subsequently, on March 24, 2003, the INS initiated removal proceedings by
charging Singh with removability because he remained in the United States past June 4,
1998, without authorization. Singh applied for asylum on December 9, 2003.
Singh was the only witness at the hearing before the IJ. He was represented by
counsel. Singh initially testified that he left India because in 1984 “my brother’s stuff got
burned during [riots in Delhi.]” He added that, in 1990, his father was shot at his farm by
unknown assailants during crossfire between police and a terrorist. Singh testified that after
that the police came to their house, accused his brother and him of giving shelter to terrorists,

-- 2 of 7 --

3
and detained them for two weeks, during which time they were beaten and tortured. Singh
proffered no medical reports regarding this incident.
Singh’s attorney then asked him “when you left India in 1997, who were you afraid
of?” Singh responded, “police and Hindus.” Singh testified that he joined Akali Del
Amristar, a party supporting a free Khalistan, in “1993 or 1994", but stated that “[w]hile I
was working for the organization, I had no problem.” When asked when he first faced a
problem, Singh stated “[the] [f]irst time I faced the problem was on second week of
September in 1997.” When Singh’s counsel asked him again “‘97?" as if to clarify, Singh
responded “No, the first time I felt I had problems was in 1994, then 1990 . . . but . . . I had
the problem in 1997.” Singh related an incident in 1997 in which his house was raided and
his brother arrested and detained for two or three days. He could not recall the specific date
in 1997.
Singh’s attorney asked him again “between 1990 and 1997, was there any other time
that you were arrested by the police.” Singh stated that “on April 13, 1995, we were stopped
by the police . . . accus[ed] of working for Akali Dal Amritsar . . . we were detained for one
day, we were not beaten, and we were released.”
Finally, Singh testified that on August 15, 1995, he was arrested on his way back from
a protest rally. He testified that he was detained for several days and beaten severely by the
police. His asylum application states that he was arrested on August 15, 1996. When asked
to explain the discrepancy, Singh testified that “it was a mistake . . . actually it was 1995.”

-- 3 of 7 --

4
Singh also testified that he suffered severe medical problems as a result of the beatings and
proffered as proof a letter from his treating physician in India.
Singh was then asked why he had not applied for asylum immediately upon entering
the United States. He responded that “I was looking for work, . . . and I found a girl . . . then
I married her.” Upon further questioning, he explained that he was separated from his wife
and living with another woman, with whom he has two children.
Following a hearing on the merits of Singh’s application, the IJ issued an oral decision
denying his petition. The IJ found that his application for asylum was not timely, and there
were no changed or extraordinary circumstances justifying the delay. The IJ further found
that his testimony regarding past persecution was not credible and that he had not established
that it was more likely than not that he would be persecuted or tortured if returned to India.
Singh appealed the decision to the BIA. In an order issued on August 31, 2006, the
BIA dismissed Singh’s appeal. The BIA made independent findings as to his failure to file
for asylum in a timely fashion, and adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision with respect to
Singh’s credibility and his eligibility for withholding of removal. Singh then filed a petition
for review.
We have exclusive jurisdiction to review final orders of removal pursuant to INA
Section 242(a)(1). 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) (2005), as amended by The REAL ID Act of 2005,

-- 4 of 7 --

We do not have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Singh’s application1
for asylum was time-barred. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); see also Sukwanputra v. Gonzales, 434
F.3d 627, 635 (3d Cir. 2006).
5
§ 106, Pub. L. No. 109-13, Div. B, 119 Stat 231. Singh’s petition for review was timely1
filed and venue is proper because the proceedings before the IJ were concluded in Newark,
New Jersey.
We will review the BIA’s opinion and, to the extent that the Board summarily affirms
and adopts the IJ’s decision, we will review the decision of the IJ. See Abdulai v. Ashcroft,
239 F.3d 542, 549 n. 2 (3d Cir. 2001), Tarrawally v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir.
2003). We review factual findings to see if they are supported by substantial evidence.
Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477, 483 (3d Cir. 2001). Under this standard, “[factual]
finding[s] must be upheld unless the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but
compels it.” Abdille, 242 F.3d at 483-84.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Withholding
To qualify for withholding of deportation, Singh must show that it is more likely than
not that he will suffer persecution on account of a protected ground (race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion) if he is deported.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 413, 424 (1984). One way that
he may meet this burden is by showing past persecution, which raises a rebuttable
presumption of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(b)(1), (b)(2). We have defined

-- 5 of 7 --

6
persecution as “threats to life, confinement, torture, and economic restrictions so severe that
they constitute a threat to life or freedom.” Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 536 (3d Cir. 2005)
(quoting Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233, 1240 (3d Cir. 1993)).
Singh argues that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding regarding Singh’s past
persecution was not supported by substantial evidence and that the IJ and BIA did not
correctly analyze the possibility of future persecution. We disagree.
The IJ based his adverse credibility finding on the fact that it took repeated questions
from his attorney for Singh to testify to the 1995 arrest and on the discrepancy between the
date attested to and the date provided in Singh’s I-589 filing. The IJ put special emphasis on
the date because it was the only specific date provided in Singh’s filing. The IJ also found
that the documentary evidence provided by Singh regarding his injuries was not convincing,
as it consisted of a single medical report that did not detail the physician’s qualifications or
provide any particular diagnosis or treatment.
The IJ specifically discussed the likelihood of future persecution and that discussion
was adopted by the BIA. The IJ reviewed the State Department Country Report on India and
found that while torture and persecution do occur in India, it is not so widespread that any
particular individual is more likely than not to be persecuted or tortured, whether or not that
individual is a proponent of Khalistan. Singh presented no individualized evidence that he
would be persecuted other than his advocacy of Khalistan and his claim of past persecution

-- 6 of 7 --

7
that the IJ found not to be credible. Accordingly, the IJ held that Singh had not established
a clear likelihood of future persecution.
B. Convention Against Torture
Withholding under the Convention Against Torture requires that the applicant
“establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to the proposed
country of removal.” See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). Singh did not provide any evidence
regarding torture that was not part of his argument for withholding based on future
persecution. Accordingly, the above analysis applies and we find that he has failed to carry
his burden under the Convention Against Torture.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for review.

-- 7 of 7 --