Singh

Singh v. Holder

Good Law
406 F. App'x 166
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 16, 201007-71641California2,041 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Manjaf Singh (“Singh”), a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found that Singh had permanently resettled in Austria, and that Singh’s testimony was not credible. The BIA affirmed. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that neither finding is supported by substantial evidence.

I. FIRM RESETTLEMENT FINDING

The government has not presented direct evidence that Austria issued Singh “a formal offer of some type of official status permitting the alien to reside in that country indefinitely,” nor has the government shown “that direct evidence of a formal offer is unobtainable.” Maharaj v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 961, 976 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc). Accordingly, the government has failed to carry its burden of establishing that Singh is “firmly resettled” in Austria. 8 C.F.R. § 208.15 ; see also Maharaj, 450 F.3d at 967 . Thus, Singh is not barred from seeking asylum under regulations applicable to his application. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.