Surinder Singh v. Todd Blanche

── Surinder Singh v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 15 2026 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SURINDER SINGH, No. 16-70710 Petitioner, Agency No. A099-912-112 v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 11, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and BLUMENFELD, District Judge.*** Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Miller. * 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 Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.  Petitioner Surinder Singh petitions this Court for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case, we need not recount it here. “In reviewing the BIA’s decisions, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021). Where as here “the BIA adopted and affirmed the [IJ]’s decision,” “[w]e. . . look through the BIA’s decision and treat the IJ’s decision as the final agency decision for purposes of this appeal.” Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation modified). We review factual determinations by the BIA, including those establishing “eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT,” for substantial evidence. Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 641–42 (9th Cir. 2021). I “To be eligible for asylum, a petitioner has the burden to demonstrate a likelihood of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, 2 religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1059 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation modified). “To be eligible for withholding of removal, the petitioner must discharge this burden by a ‘clear probability.’” Id. at 1059–60. If, as is true here, the immigrant has successfully demonstrated that they have suffered past persecution, the burden then falls upon the government to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the immigrant does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. Deloso v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 858, 863–64 (9th Cir. 2005) (as amended). This can be done by showing the immigrant could relocate within their country of origin. See Kaiser v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 653, 659 (9th Cir. 2004). “For purposes of asylum and withholding of removal, assessing Petitioner’s ability to relocate consists of two steps: (1) whether [he] could relocate safely, and (2) whether it would be reasonable to require [him] to do so.” Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland, 993 F.3d 743, 755 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation modified). “To determine the reasonableness of relocation, factors to consider include p