Filed: May 25, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: 11-2195-ag Singh v. Holder BIA Abrams, IJ A099 577 079 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE
Summary: 11-2195-ag Singh v. Holder BIA Abrams, IJ A099 577 079 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE N..
More
11-2195-ag
Singh v. Holder
BIA
Abrams, IJ
A099 577 079
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 25th day of May, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT D. SACK,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 PETER W. HALL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 DALIP SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15 11-2195-ag
16 v. NAC
17
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Richard W. Chen, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Russell J. E. Verby, Senior
27 Litigation Counsel; Monica G.
28 Antoun, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, Civil
30 Division, United States Department
31 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Dalip Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks
6 review of an April 29, 2011 decision of the BIA dismissing
7 his appeal of the April 8, 2009 decision of Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams, denying his applications for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Dalip Singh, No.
11 A099 577 079 (B.I.A. April 29, 2011), aff’g No. A099 577 079
12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City April 8, 2009). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history of this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan
17 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
18 applicable standards of review are well-established.
19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v.
20 Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). As a preliminary
21 matter, Singh has failed to sufficiently raise any challenge
22 to the agency’s denial of CAT relief. We therefore address
23 only Singh’s claims regarding asylum and withholding of
24 removal.
2
1 I. Past Persecution and a Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
2 Singh asserts that he suffered past persecution at the
3 hands of two groups: (1) Sikh militants who threatened him
4 when he declined to join their Afghanistan contingent as a
5 military expert; and (2) the Indian police who sought to
6 investigate his ties to the Sikh militants. However, as the
7 agency reasonably found, the harm to which Singh testified
8 did not rise to the level of persecution because Singh did
9 not suffer any physical harm as a result of the militants’
10 unfulfilled threats and the police’s repeated visits to his
11 house. See Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223, 226 n.3 (2d
12 Cir. 2006)
13 The agency also reasonably found that the harm Singh
14 fears does not bear a nexus to a protected ground. For
15 applications such as Singh’s, governed by the amendments
16 made to the Immigration and Nationality Act by the REAL ID
17 Act of 2005, a protected ground must be “one central reason”
18 for the applicant’s persecution. See Rodas Castro v.
19 Holder,
597 F.3d 93, 103 (2d Cir. 2010). One reason Singh
20 rejected the militants’ recruitment, his refusal to betray
21 his country, may constitute a political motive. Cf. INS v.
22 Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 482 (1992) (finding that a
3
1 refusal to join guerillas because a fear of combat or
2 retaliation from the government was not a political motive).
3 However, he failed to establish that the militants believed
4 that he refused their offer for any reason other than his
5 desire to remain with his family, retain his pension, or
6 avoid combat, which are not recognized as political
7 motivations. See id. at 482-83.
8 Singh also failed to establish that the police sought
9 to harm him or his family because they were Sikh because,
10 according to his testimony, the police sought to question
11 him only after receiving reliable information that anti-
12 government militants tried to recruit him. Although Singh’s
13 wife paid the police to discontinue their investigation,
14 Singh testified that paying bribes to policemen in order to
15 secure their protection was done as a matter of course. As
16 a result, the agency did not err in its conclusion that
17 Singh failed to demonstrate that the harm he fears would be
18 on account of a protected ground, and that he consequently
19 failed to demonstrate his eligibility for asylum and
20 withholding of removal.
21 Singh challenges the BIA’s finding that he could have
22 sought aid from his former military colleagues to protect
4
1 him from improper police harassment and that the Indian
2 government was thus not unwilling or unable to protect him.
3 Although the agency’s finding is questionable considering
4 that the military cannot “control” the police, see Rizal v.
5 Gonzales, 442 F.3d 84, 92 (2d Cir. 2006), remand would be
6 futile because Singh failed to establish the requisite nexus
7 between the harm he fears and a protected ground. See Lin
8 Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
480 F.3d 104, 117 (2d Cir.
9 2007).
10 II. Due Process
11 Singh contends that the IJ’s assumption that the Indian
12 police’s investigation was legitimate without citation to
13 the record indicated a bias against him that improperly
14 influenced his decision. To the contrary, the IJ made a
15 reasonable inference in the exercise of his fact-finding
16 powers based on Singh’s testimony that the police, after
17 receiving information that militants sought to recruit
18 Singh, sought to investigate the potential national security
19 threat. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229A(b)(1); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.10(b),
20 1003.42(d) (providing that the IJ makes a de novo
21 determination based on evidence as to whether an alien
22 established a credible fear); Siewe v. Gonzales,
480 F.3d
23 160, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2007).
5
1 III. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim
2 Singh also argues that he established that his previous
3 counsel, Amy Gell, failed to timely submit documents,
4 resolve inconsistencies in his application prior to its
5 submission, and provide additional evidence of country
6 conditions and his religion and, thus, prejudiced his case.
7 Although, as the BIA pointed out, Singh met the procedural
8 requirements outlined in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec.
9 637 (BIA 1988), he failed to demonstrate that Gell’s
10 performance adversely impacted the IJ’s decision because:
11 (1) the IJ gave Singh additional opportunities to submit his
12 missing documents; (2) the IJ assumed his credibility
13 thereby making irrelevant the inconsistencies and omissions
14 in his application; (3) the IJ assumed his Sikh identity;
15 and (4) Singh did not provide evidence of country conditions
16 reports that Gell could have provided that would have
17 changed the outcome of his case. See Rabiu v. INS, 41 F.3d
18 879, 882 (2d Cir. 1994).
19 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
20 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
21 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
22 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
23 this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for
6
1 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
2 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
3 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6
7
7
