Shankar Singh Daroch v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHANKAR SINGH DAROCH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70464
Agency No. A077-426-968
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 21, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and OLIVER, Chief District
Judge.***
1. Shankar Singh Daroch, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review
of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from an IJ’s decision denying his application
FILED
DEC 10 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
*** The Honorable Solomon Oliver, Jr., Chief District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Page 2 of 3
for asylum. Daroch has been seeking asylum since December 1998. This is the
second time his case has come before the Ninth Circuit—in 2004, this court
reversed an IJ’s adverse credibility determination and remanded the case to the
BIA. Daroch v. Ashcroft, 96 F. App’x 541, 542 (9th Cir. 2004). The BIA, in turn,
remanded the case to an IJ, who denied Daroch’s application on two alternative
grounds: first, that Daroch was not credible; and second, that Daroch could safely
relocate elsewhere in India. The BIA upheld the IJ’s decision on the relocation
issue alone.
2. As the BIA did, we decline to address the IJ’s credibility finding, and
instead assume without deciding that Daroch’s testimony was credible.
Nonetheless, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the
government rebutted any presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). The government submitted a great deal of evidence
concerning country conditions, including reports from the State Department and
from foreign governments indicating, among other things, that Sikhs occupy high
levels of government and travel and worship freely throughout the country.
Further, the evidence suggests that local police in the Punjab have neither the
inclination nor the resources to pursue low-level members of the Akali Dal Mann
Party, and Daroch, formerly a very junior military officer, introduced no evidence

-- 2 of 3 --

Page 3 of 3
that he had a significant role in Party affairs. Finally, Daroch himself admitted he
could relocate to one of the many Sikh communities in India outside the Punjab.
3. The IJ did not abuse his discretion in refusing to grant a continuance so
that Daroch might obtain the testimony of an expert witness. Daroch had sufficient
time before the hearing to arrange for such testimony, which would not have been
material in any case, as it could have helped Daroch only with respect to
credibility. Because this court accepts Daroch as credible for the purposes of this
appeal, any error would have been harmless.
4. Daroch’s due process claim also lacks merit. We agree with the BIA that
the IJ never abandoned his role as an impartial judge.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --