Amarjit Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMARJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70186
Agency No. A075-259-435
MEMORANDUM*
AMARJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72450
Agency No. A075-259-435
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
FILED
DEC 01 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.

-- 1 of 4 --

Page 2 of 4
Submitted November 21, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and OLIVER, Chief District
Judge.***
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that country
conditions have fundamentally changed in India. See 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A), 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(A); Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826,
830–33 (9th Cir. 2014) (describing fundamentally changed conditions in India).
The BIA examined numerous country conditions reports including documents from
the State Department, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the United
Kingdom Home Office Border Agency, and the Immigration and Refugee Board of
Canada. These documents provide substantial evidence supporting the BIA’s
finding that the treatment of Sikhs has changed “dramatically.” Contrary to
Amarjit Singh’s contentions, the BIA conducted the required individualized
analysis. See Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc); Singh, 753
F.3d at 834. The BIA found that Singh was not a high-level militant and that the
** 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.

-- 2 of 4 --

Page 3 of 4
fundamentally changed country conditions have rendered safe those in his
situation.
Substantial evidence also supports the finding that Singh could reasonably
relocate within India. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B).
The BIA conducted a proper, individualized analysis, focusing on Singh’s situation
and his past persecution at the hands of local police in Haryana. The BIA found
that the local police would have believed Singh was at most a low-level Sikh
militant; that Sikhs, including low-level ex-militants, are able to move safely
throughout the country; and that the police in Singh’s home state are unlikely to
travel throughout the country looking for him if he returns. The BIA also found
that tenant-registration drives are unlikely to affect Singh’s safety in India.
Nothing in the record “compels” us to find otherwise. See Jiang v. Holder, 754
F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014).
In sum, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the government
rebutted the presumption that Singh has a well-founded fear of future persecution.
Consequently, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. See
Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1288–89 (9th Cir. 2008).

-- 3 of 4 --

Page 4 of 4
2. Singh was not deprived of the opportunity to testify in violation of his
due process rights. He was given ample opportunity to submit documents and
could have requested to testify. His tactical choice not to testify when he thought
the Immigration Judge was going to award asylum did not render the proceedings
“fundamentally unfair.” Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011).
3. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to
reopen. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). Singh failed
to demonstrate that the evidence he hoped to submit was either new or previously
unavailable. Cf. Oyeniran v. Holder, 672 F.3d 800, 808 (9th Cir. 2012). The BIA
did not abuse its discretion in finding even the newer pieces of evidence
cumulative or non-material.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --