Summary Calendar HARNEK SINGH v. John Ashcroft, U.s. Attorney General

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
-1-
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 12, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-60109
Summary Calendar
HARNEK SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A79 103 981
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Harnek Singh, a citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (BIA) order summarily affirming the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Singh’s application for asylum
and withholding of removal.
The petitioner first argues that the IJ’s decision is not

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
entitled to deference given the BIA’s summary affirmance. Singh’s
argument is foreclosed. See Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 418
(5th Cir. 2003); Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 831 (5th Cir.
2003). Because the BIA summarily affirmed without opinion, the
IJ’s decision is the final agency determination for our review.
Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 831-32.
This court will “review the BIA’s decision ‘procedurally’ to
ensure that the complaining alien has received full and fair
consideration of all circumstances that give rise to his or her
claims.” Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1996)
(internal quotations and citations omitted). This court must
affirm the decision “if there is no error of law and if reasonable,
substantial, and probative evidence on the record, considered as a
whole, supports the decision’s factual findings.” Howard v. INS,
930 F.2d 432, 434 (5th Cir. 1991).
The petitioner argues that the IJ’s opinion improperly relies
on Matter of R-, 20 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 1992). As noted by the IJ,
to show that he has suffered past persecution an alien must do more
than simply show physical abuse or civil rights violations by the
police. Matter of R-, 20 I&N Dec. at 626. Mere “harassment” does
not amount to persecution for purposes of establishing asylum
eligibility. See Bastanipour v. INS, 980 F.2d 1129, 1133 (7th Cir.
1992). At most, petitioner’s testimony shows that he was harassed
by the police because of his suspected involvement with Sikh

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
separatists.
Finally, the petitioner argues that the IJ erred in not
placing the burden of proving the reasonableness of internal
relocation within India on the government. Where a petitioner has
not shown past persecution, he must show a well-founded fear of
future persecution in order to be eligible for asylum. 8 C.F.R. §
208.13(b). A petitioner does not have a well-founded fear of
future persecution if he could avoid persecution by relocating to
another part of his country. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(ii). The
petitioner bears the burden of proving that internal relocation
would be unreasonable. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(3)(i). However, where
“a party seeking asylum demonstrates that a national government is
the ‘persecutor,’ the burden [shifts to] the INS” to show that
internal relocation would be reasonable because the persecution is
not country-wide. Abdel-Masieh v. I.N.S., 73 F.3d 579, 586-87 (5th
Cir. 1996) (quoting Singh v. Moschorak, 53 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th
Cir. 1995) (emphasis added); codified in 8 C.F.R. §
208.13(b)(3)(ii).
The petitioner’s uncorroborated claim that the alleged
persecution was sponsored by the national government of India is
not sufficient to meet his initial burden of “demonstrating” that
the persecution is government sponsored. Aside from this
testimony, there is no evidence in the record which suggests that
any persecution of Sikhs in Punjab was sponsored by the national

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
government of India. Therefore, the burden of proving that
internal relocation is unreasonable remains with the petitioner.
The petitioner has not met this burden. In fact, reports offered
by petitioner from the Danish Refugee Counsel and the United States
Department of State, both conducted in 2000, support the IJ’s
finding that Sikhs in other parts of India are not subject to
persecution.
For the reasons stated above, the BIA’s summary affirmation of
the IJ’s decision denying the petitioners application for asylum
and withholding of removal is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --