Amrik Singh v. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Eric H. Holder, Jr. is the current Attorney General of the United* *
States. Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without ** *
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, United States District Judge for *** *
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMRIK SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, * *
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-75049
Agency No. A72-012-899
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 4, 2009* **
San Francisco, California
Before: NOONAN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY, District****
Judge.
FILED
NOV 19 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Amrik Singh petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) reversing the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) grant of deferral of
removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and ordering Singh
removed to India. Singh contends that the BIA erred in sustaining the
government’s appeal and reversing the IJ’s grant of deferral of removal under the
CAT, because Singh met his burden of proving that it was more likely than not that
he would be tortured if returned to India.
This court has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Singh’s request for
deferral of removal under the CAT. See Bromfield v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1071,
1074–76 (9th Cir. 2008); Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 972, 980–81 (9th Cir.
2007).
We review questions of law de novo, including the question of whether the
BIA applied the correct legal standard to the IJ’s factual findings. See Morales,
478 F.3d at 983; Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir. 2007).
Here the BIA used the correct standard of review in reversing the IJ’s
decision to grant deferral of removal under the CAT. Specifically, the BIA
accepted the IJ’s findings of fact and conducted a de novo review of the IJ’s legal
decision based on those findings. De novo review is appropriate when, as here, the
question presented is a mixed question of law and fact. See Ramadan v. Gonzales,

-- 2 of 4 --

3
479 F.3d 646, 654 (9th Cir. 2007); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii). Based on a de novo
review of the record, the BIA reversed the IJ’s order granting Singh a deferral of
removal under the CAT. The BIA acted within its authority when it denied Singh
relief under the CAT.
We review for substantial evidence the factual findings underlying the BIA’s
determination that Singh was not eligible for relief under the CAT. See Arteaga,
511 F.3d at 944. Here, the BIA acknowledged Singh’s testimony about past
persecution. However, such evidence is only one factor in assessing whether Singh
will likely be tortured in India in the future. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3). The BIA
also recognized that the country conditions (and the human rights situation) in the
Punjab have substantially improved since the mid-1990s and that Sikhs are now a
well-respected and powerful minority group in India. Law and order in the Punjab
are essentially normal, as military-related abuses have significantly decreased;
police are now being held accountable for these abuses; and individuals previously
involved in militancy are returning to India or emerging from the underground.
See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[C]ountry conditions
alone can play a decisive role in granting relief under the [CAT].”).
Furthermore, the BIA also pointed out that Singh’s brother works for the
government in India and his sisters are teachers there, all apparently without

-- 3 of 4 --

4
harassment; that Singh is only minimally active with Sikh groups; and that Singh
has never been baptized as a Sikh, has cut his hair, and does not wear a turban.
After weighing the evidence, the BIA properly determined, based on a
thorough review of Singh’s testimony and evidentiary submissions, that Singh
failed to meet his burden of proving that he would more likely than not be
subjected to torture if he were removed to India. Consequently, we conclude that
the BIA’s order reversing the IJ’s decision to grant deferral of removal under the
CAT is supported by substantial evidence.
Petition DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --