Vinod Kumar 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 Honorable Ronald B. Leighton, United States District Judge for**
the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VINOD KUMAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-73373
Agency No. A079-606-399
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 5, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: RYMER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LEIGHTON, District
Judge.**
Vinod Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
OCT 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

(CAT). The BIA found that the government had sufficiently rebutted the
presumption that Kumar has a well-founded fear of future persecution if he returns
to India. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition
for review, and we remand this matter to the BIA “to assess whether changed
country conditions rebut the presumption based on the proper legal standards
including an individualized determination.” Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807
(9th Cir. 2004).
Our case law requires that “the BIA . . . provide an ‘individualized analysis
of how changed conditions will affect the specific petitioner’s situation.’” Lopez,
366 F.3d at 805 (quoting Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1999) (en
banc)). Here, the BIA determined that Kumar no longer faced a well-founded fear
of future persecution because of “(1) the current country conditions, including the
end of the insurgency/counter-insurgency in Punjab; (2) changes in the police
forces; and (3) the fact that the respondent is apolitical and is not a Sikh.” In
addition, the BIA cited to specific sections in the Department of State’s country
report (released March 31, 2003), which indicated there was a decrease in human
right’s violations in the Punjab region. However, the BIA did not make an
individualized analysis as to whether the changed country conditions would affect
Kumar’s specific situation—a Hindu speaking out against police corruption in

-- 2 of 3 --

1995 and 2000. Therefore, substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s
decision.
Because Kumar’s claim for CAT relief and withholding of removal are
based on the same evidence offered in support of his asylum claim, we remand
both for further consider consideration consistent with this disposition.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED.

-- 3 of 3 --