Amrit Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch

MEMORANDUM

1. The Board of Immigration Appeals (the “Board”) denied Singh’s application for asylum on the grounds that he had not shown past persecution by forces the government was “unable or unwilling to control.” Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2004). “[A]ny reasonable factfinder would have been compelled” to conclude the Board was wrong. Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)(B). Singh sought protection from the police after the first time he was beaten. But once the police learned that his attackers were with the Congress Party, they warned him to stop espousing his political views and failed to further investigate. Singh’s allegations regarding the police are buttressed by numerous statements by his family and friends that the Board failed to discuss. It thus would have been pointless for Singh to seek the police’s help after his second beating. See Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916 , 921- 22 (9th Cir. 2010); Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2006). The record compels the conclusion that the police were not willing to protect Singh, so the Board’s finding that Singh did…