Surjit 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SURJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74071
Agency No. A077-421-500
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Surjit 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
SEP 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 08-74071
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Gonzalez-
Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and
grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Singh failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured in India. See
Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1288-89 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence of changed
country conditions defeated CAT claim).
Contrary to the BIA’s instructions to the IJ in its remand order, the IJ did not
analyze Singh’s claim with a presumption that his fear of future persecution was
well-founded. Thus, the IJ did not shift the burden of proof to the government on
the issues of changed country conditions and internal relocation. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1)(ii). Accordingly, substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s
affirmation of the IJ’s finding that Singh’s presumption of future fear was rebutted
by changed country conditions in India, because the IJ did not make this finding.
For the same reasons, substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s affirmation
of the IJ’s finding that the government established Singh could reasonably relocate
outside the Punjab. Accordingly, we remand Singh’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (per curiam).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 08-74071
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --