Nirmal Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NIRMAL SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70434
Agency No. A099-330-446
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted July 8, 2009
Seattle, Washington
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, KLEINFELD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Nirmal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions this court for review of
a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his applications
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT’). Singh’s asylum claim is addressed in an opinion filed
concurrently with this disposition. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
APR 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

1 This memorandum disposition only addresses Singh’s requests for
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We
address his application for asylum in an opinion filed concurrently with this
memorandum disposition.
2
Factual findings underlying the agency’s denial of relief are reviewed for
substantial evidence, Kozulin v. INS, 218 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2000), and they
are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude
to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). As the facts of the case are known to
the parties, we need not repeat them here. 1
I
With respect to withholding of removal, the agency denied relief because the
government established that Singh “could avoid a future threat to his or her life or
freedom by relocating to another part of the proposed country of removal and,
under all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do
so.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B).
Nothing in the record compels a contrary conclusion. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B). In his own testimony, Singh only expressed a fear of Punjab
police, and noted several lengths of time in which he was able to reside in other
portions of India without incident. The record further demonstrates that Punjabi
Sikhs such as Singh are able to relocate to other parts of India. Moreover, the

-- 2 of 4 --

3
record does not compel the conclusion that rank-and-file members of Singh’s
political party are subject to persecution.
II
The agency likewise denied relief under the CAT, because the government
established that Singh “could relocate to a part of the country of removal where he
. . . is not likely to be tortured.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii). There is no
presumption of future persecution in this context: rather, “the burden is on the
applicant to show that it is more likely than not that []he will be tortured, and one
of the relevant considerations is the possibility of relocation.” Hasan v. Ashcroft,
380 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2004).
Singh’s assertions with respect to this claim are substantially similar to those
under withholding of removal. For all the reasons stated in the prior Part, Singh
has “failed to establish that internal relocation within [India] was impossible.”
Lemus-Galvan v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2008). The record does
not compel reversal of the BIA’s denial of Singh’s request for CAT relief.
III
Accordingly, Singh’s petition for review with respect to withholding of
removal and relief under the CAT is
DENIED.

-- 3 of 4 --

4

-- 4 of 4 --