Singh v. Bondi

── Singh v. Bondi ── Case No.: 23-7361 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 26, 2026 Category: General 23-7361 Singh v. Bondi BIA Cortes, IJ A215 679 717 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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 26th day of March, two thousand 4 twenty-six. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 MYRNA PÉREZ, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SUKHJINDER SINGH, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 23-7361 17 NAC 18 PAMELA BONDI, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Heena Arora, Esq., Law Offices of Heena 24 Arora, P.C., Jamaica, NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant 2 Attorney General; Julie M. Iversen, Senior 3 Litigation Counsel; Lynda A. Do, Trial 4 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 5 United States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 8 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 9 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Sukhjinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a 11 September 18, 2023 decision of the BIA affirming an October 23, 2019 decision of 12 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of 13 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 14 Sukhjinder Singh, No. A 215 679 717 (B.I.A. Sept. 18, 2023), aff’g No. A 215 679 717 15 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 23, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 16 underlying facts and procedural history. 17 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and supplemented by the 18 BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan 19 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Thus, the only issues before us 20 are the grounds that the BIA relied on—that Singh could relocate to avoid 2  1 persecution and that he did not show he would more likely than not be tortured. 1 2 We review the agency’s “legal conclusions de novo, and its factual 3 findings . . . under the substantial evidence standard.” Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 4 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted). “[T]he administrative findings of 5 fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to 6 conclu