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── Singh v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NAVDEEP SINGH, No. 25-4096 Agency No. Petitioner, A215-674-445 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 18, 2026** Seattle, Washington Before: TALLMAN, OWENS, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Navdeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, * 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). withholding of removal, humanitarian asylum, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). “Where, as here, the BIA cites [Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994)] and also provides its own review of the evidence and law, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.” Ruiz- Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). “We ‘review questions of law de novo’ and the agency’s ‘factual findings for substantial evidence.’” Id. (citation omitted). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and remand for the agency to address the second prong of the humanitarian asylum analysis in the first instance. 1. For asylum and withholding of removal, if an applicant demonstrates past persecution, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution because: (1) “[t]here has been a fundamental change in circumstances”; or (2) “[t]he applicant could avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country . . . [and] it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.” 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)-(ii), 1208.16(b)(1)(i)-(ii). The agency found that, although Singh established past persecution on account of his political opinion, DHS had demonstrated that Singh could safely and 2 25-4096 reasonably relocate within India to avoid future persecution. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination. The agency noted that: (1) Singh had been accepted to the National Institute of Technology in Delhi and his admission had never been cancelled; (2) Singh spoke English and Hindi fluently; (3) Singh did not have any trouble during the three months he resided with his aunt in Delhi before leaving for the United States; (4) Singh’s fears that the Bharantiya Janta Party (“BJP”) would track him down outside of Haryana were not reasonable; (5) Jats reside in many states throughout India; (6) seven out of ten chief ministers in Haryana were Jats; (7) there was no evidence of generalized violence between the Jats and non-Jats, or violence targeting political activists on either side, since the February 2016 riots in Haryana; and (8) the BJP had accumulated significant Jat suppo