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

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURVINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74518
Agency No. A098-512-011
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Gurvinder 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 decision denying his application for asylum. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Kaiser v.
FILED
SEP 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74518 2
Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 653, 657 (9th Cir. 2004), and we grant the petition for review
and remand.
The record does not compel reversal of the BIA’s determination that Singh
failed to establish past persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th
Cir. 1995) (detention, interrogation, and beating did not compel finding of past
persecution). However, because Singh claims he fears persecution at the hands of
the Indian police, he is entitled to the presumption that the threat of persecution
exists nationwide and that relocation is therefore unreasonable. See Melkonian v.
Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1070 (9th Cir. 2003). Because the agency erred by
failing to apply the presumption that relocation would not be reasonable, we
remand for the BIA to consider in the first instance whether the government
rebutted the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. See Fakhry v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --