Jagtar Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Jagtar Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order concluding that he is ineligible for withholding of removal. The sole question before us is whether substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the government showed that there has been a fundamental change in circumstances such that Singh’s life or freedom will not be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion if he is removed to India. Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision, we deny the petition for review.

I

We begin by reciting the facts offered by Singh during his testimony before the Immigration Judge (IJ) and in his supporting declarations. Although the IJ determined that Singh’s testimony was not credible, the Board did not expressly adopt that finding in its order dismissing Singh’s appeal. ‘When the BIA’s decision is silent on the issue of credibility, despite an IJ’s explicit adverse credibility finding, we may presume that the BIA found the petitioner to be credible.” Krotova v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1080, 1084 (9th Cir.2005) (citations…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion denying petitioner Jagtar Singh’s petition for review because, in my view, that denial is based on country reports that do not rebut the presumption of future persecution resulting from this court’s ruling in the prior appeal that petitioner suffered past persecution. Singh v. Keisler, 249 Fed.Appx. 602 (9th Cir.2007). The majority confirms the findings by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and the Board of *838 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that do not address petitioner’s precise claim and that erroneously require petitioner to meet an improper and near-impossible burden of proof, instead of placing the burden on the government, as required by law. 1

On remand from this court’s prior order granting review of the petition for withholding of removal, the government attempted to rebut the presumption of future persecution with a 2008 U.S. State Department Issue paper, a 2007 State Department Country Report (together, the “U.S. Country Reports”), a 2007 United Kingdom Home Office operational guidance note (“the U.K. Report”), and two reports from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). The IJ (as…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAGTAR SINGH, No. 10-71999 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A077-843-923

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, OPINION Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 16, 2014* San Francisco, California

Filed May 21, 2014

Before: J. Clifford Wallace and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges, and Robert W. Gettleman, Senior District Judge.**

Opinion by Judge Bybee; Dissent by Judge Gettleman

* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). ** The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. SUMMARY***

Immigration

The panel denied a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of withholding of removal.

The panel held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that the government had carried its burden to show by a preponderance…