Singh v. Blanche

── Singh v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUKHJINDER SINGH, No. 25-1824 Agency No. Petitioner, A206-588-704 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 23, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, CHRISTEN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Sukhjinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Singh’s applications for asylum, withholding of * 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). removal, and protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CAT). See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)–1208.18. Singh also petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen and terminate proceedings so he can pursue his application for adjustment of status with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, procedural history, and arguments underlying this petition, we do not detail them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We deny the petition in part, grant it in part, and remand for further proceedings. 1. With the exception of Singh’s arguments based on his Sikh identity, we first conclude we may reach Singh’s arguments on the merits because they were exhausted before the BIA. See Arsdi v. Holder, 659 F.3d 295, 929 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that, where the BIA cites Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), and does not disagree with the IJ, it is assumed that the BIA has reviewed the petitioner’s claims on the merits). 2. Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision and cited Matter of Burbano, we “review the IJ’s decision as if it were that of the BIA.” Tista v. Holder, 722 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). “We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims for substantial evidence,” meaning “we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 2 25-1824 (9th Cir. 2019). We review legal questions de novo. Gonzalez-Lara v. Garland, 104 F.4th 1109, 1111 (9th Cir. 2024). 3. The IJ’s conclusion that Singh’s proposed particular social groups (PSGs) were not cognizable because he “failed to make any argument or submit any evidence” that Indian society recognized witnesses or reporters of crimes as socially distinct was supported by substantial evidence. Singh’s proposed PSG, “identified witnesses of crimes,” bears some similarity to a PSG we recognized as cognizable in Henriquez-Rivas v. Garland, 707 F.3d 1081, 1091–93 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (witnesses who testify against gang members). However, the petitioner in Henriquez-Rivas provided “significant evidence” to support the social distinction of her PSG, id. at 1092, while here the IJ found that Singh did not submit supporting objective e