Kamalpal Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KAMALPAL SINGH, No. 10-71677 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A094-990-061

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

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

Submitted February 13, 2014* San Francisco, California

Filed August 26, 2014

Before: Stephen Reinhardt and Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges, and Lloyd D. George, Senior District Judge.**

Opinion by Judge Reinhardt; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge George

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

Immigration

The panel granted a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of asylum and withholding of removal to a citizen of India who asserted claims for past persecution and a fear of future persecution by police on account…

Opinion by Judge REINHARDT; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge GEORGE.

OPINION

Kamalpal Singh, a 51-year-old native and citizen of India, petitions for review from the BIA’s denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal based on imputed political opinion. Singh entered *1157 the United States in 2006 after fleeing egregious physical abuse by the local police in his town of Jullandar in the state of Punjab. Although the BIA affirmed the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision to grant Singh relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), it held that an imputed political opinion was not a central reason for the police brutality against him and denied his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Relying in part on our decision in Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir.2004), the BIA concluded that the Punjabi police had legitimate reasons for their arrest and detention of Singh. The government did not contest the IJ’s decision to grant Singh relief under CAT, and the BIA, accordingly, affirmed this portion of the IJ’s decision. We grant Singh’s petition and hold that the record compels the conclusion that Singh is eligible for asylum and…

dissenting in part; concurring in part:

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that the evidence compels the conclusion that a central reason for Singh’s persecution was an imputed political opinion. The evidence, both direct and circumstantial, shows that the reason for the police’s arrest and mistreatment of Singh was an effort only to obtain information about Khan, a suspected terrorist. Singh’s own testimony confirmed it. The IJ found that testimony credible, and integrated it *1164 into his ruling that Singh had not demonstrated a nexus between the actions of the police and protected political opinion. The BIA concurred with the IJ’s determination. Now, the majority rejects it all. I cannot agree to pay lip service to the IJ’s credibility determination while at the same time ignoring the record upon which that determination stands.

“To reverse the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it,” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 , 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (emphasis in original), and that “no reasonable fact-finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Id. at 483-84 , 112 S.Ct. 812…