Roshan Singh v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSHAN SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70996
Agency No. A088-223-205
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 9, 2016*
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and SCHROEDER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Roshan 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.
FILED
MAR 18 2016
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 3 --

The BIA determined that Singh was ineligible for asylum and withholding
of removal because of his participation in the persecution of others. Under the
Immigration and Nationality Act, any person who has “ordered, incited, assisted,
or otherwise participated in” persecution is ineligible for asylum and withholding
of removal. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(2)(A)(i), 1231(b)(3)(B)(I).
The BIA erred in concluding that Singh participated in the persecution of
others on account of political opinion. “Without proof of at least one instance” in
which Singh’s investigation “resulted in . . . persecution of an individual because
of his political beliefs,” this Court is “unable to infer that such occurred.” See
Laipenieks v. I.N.S., 750 F.2d 1427, 1437 (9th Cir. 1985). The IJ and the BIA
assumed that the individuals Singh investigated were persecuted because during
that time period “there were suspected separatists who were often detained and
tortured” by local police. However, the record contains no evidence to support that
any specific person Singh investigated was eventually persecuted for their political
beliefs. Iqbal Singh Bagha is the only specific example in the record of an
individual Singh investigated, and there is no evidence that Bagha was persecuted
for his political beliefs.

-- 2 of 3 --

Because the BIA’s conclusion that Singh participated in the persecution of
others on account of political opinion is not supported by substantial evidence, see
Laipenieks, 750 F.2d at 1437, the BIA incorrectly determined that Singh was not
eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. Accordingly, we grant the petition
for review and reverse the BIA’s decision. We need not, and do not, reach any
other issue raised by the parties.
PETITION GRANTED.

-- 3 of 3 --