Gurdashan Singh v. William Barr

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 15 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GURDASHAN SINGH, No. 19-70861 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-072-017 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 6, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: GRABER and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and FREUDENTHAL,*** District Judge. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Nancy D. Freudenthal, United States District Judge for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation. Petitioner Gurdashan Singh1 seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") decision affirming an immigration judge’s ("IJ") denial of his claims for asylum, relief under the Convention against Torture ("CAT"), and humanitarian asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and we must uphold factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 908 (9th Cir. 2018). We grant the petition in part, deny the petition in part, and remand. 1. We cannot determine if substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the government rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution by showing that Petitioner could relocate safely "outside of Punjab," so we remand the asylum claim for further consideration. When the government identifies a “generally defined area” for relocation, the government typically must make “a more comprehensive showing of proof that the entirety of the area is safe for relocation, as compared to, for example, a specific city.” Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 660 (9th Cir. 2019). Here, the government’s reports of country conditions were outdated by at least four and a half years, and by as many as six and a half years, at the time of Petitioner’s merits hearing. Thus, those 1 The record also contains an alternative spelling for Petitioner's first name, "Gurdarshan." For consistency, we use the spelling that appears in the official case caption. 2 reports could not defeat the presumption of future persecution. See Parada, 902 F.3d at 912–13 (holding that "reliance on significantly or materially outdated country reports cannot suffice to rebut the presumption of future persecution," and granting the petition where the reports "were already a half-decade out-of-date by the time of the IJ hearing"). The BIA also relied on its belief that Petitioner "resided in Delhi, without incident," for about a month before he fled to the United States. But Petitioner testified that he spent the time in Delhi staying by himself in a house that his "agent" rented; his testimony also suggested that he did not come and go freely from the house. There is no evidence in the record that Petitioner lived openly in Delhi or disclosed his identity to anyone ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals