Singh v. Blanche

── Singh v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2026 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS SARABJIT SINGH, No. 24-7668 Petitioner, Agency No. A215-552-227 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 31, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: NGUYEN, MILLER, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Sarabjit Singh, a citizen of India, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing an appeal of an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under § 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. See Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022). Under this standard, “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We deny the petition. 1. The IJ held that Singh, a Mann Party member, established past persecution on account of political opinion when he suffered two beatings by Congress Party members in Punjab. As the BIA noted, that finding of past persecution gave rise to a “rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution (for purposes of asylum)” and to a similar presumption that Singh’s “life or freedom would be threatened in India (for purposes of withholding of removal).” Nonetheless, the agency held that the Government had rebutted this presumption by showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that “[1] the applicant could avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of India, and that, [2] under all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect him to do so.” See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B); Akosung v. Barr, 970 F.3d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir. 2020). On that basis, the BIA upheld the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. Substantial evidence supports these conclusions. First, the agency reasonably concluded that Singh could avoid future persecution by relocating within India. The IJ noted that Singh was a “relatively low-level Mann Party worker without substantial influence or notoriety,” and the agency permissibly found that such “ordinary” members are generally not 2 persecuted outside of Punjab. Singh points to evidence that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act has been used to target minorities in India, but the agency permissibly concluded that this evidence was “from several years ago,” that such abuse was targeted more at Muslims than Sikhs, and that U.S. Government reports in the record reflect that Sikhs are legally able to live freely in various parts of India.1 Substantial evidence likewise supports the agency’s conclusions that Congress Party members would not effectively be able to track Singh if he relocated to another part of India. As the agency reasonably determined, Singh has no criminal record and is not in any criminal database in India,