Baljit 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BALJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73120
Agency No. A098-126-483
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Baljit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
JUL 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73120 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings.
Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 931 (9th Cir. 2010). We grant the petition for
review, and we remand.
Because the agency found Singh established past persecution, the
government had the burden of proof to show that relocation would be safe and
reasonable under all of the circumstances. See id. at 935. In evaluating the
relocation issue, the agency relied largely on evidence relating to the ability of
Sikhs from the Punjab to relocate throughout India. Singh, however, is a farmer
from Haryana who was not only accused of involvement with militants but was
also detained twice for his involvement in farmer protests. In addition, his
testimony and declaration indicate that he is the subject of ongoing police interest.
As the agency did not take these circumstances into account in assessing
relocation, we remand Singh’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims
for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537
U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --