Singh

Singh v. Holder

Good Law
656 F.3d 1047·2011 WL 3927366·2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18624
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 8, 201107-70056California8,694 words

Opinion

Opinion

THOMAS, J.

Before: SIDNEY R. THOMAS and JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and CORMAC J. CARNEY, District Judge. [*]

Opinion by Judge THOMAS; Concurrence by Judge RAWLINSON.

THOMAS, Circuit Judge:

In this petition for review, we consider whether the petitioner established changed or extraordinary circumstances that would excuse his untimely application for asylum. When the agency addressed this question, it applied incorrect legal standards. Accordingly, we grant Singh's petition for review and remand this matter to the BIA so that it may apply the correct standards.

Bhupinder Singh, a citizen and national of India, entered the United States on August 26, 1999, as a nonimmigrant visitor with initial authorization to remain until September 24, 1999. He fled India on account of abuse he suffered at the hands of police in India, who mistakenly believed that he sympathized with terrorists. The police arrested Singh, without a warrant, three times. Each time, they detained him for a lengthy period of time, up to four days, and questioned him about his activities and knowledge of suspected terrorists. When they detained him, the police severely beat Singh with sticks and leather straps…

Lead Opinion

Thomas, J.

Opinion by Judge THOMAS; Concurrence by Judge RAWLINSON.

OPINION

In this petition for review, we consider whether the petitioner established changed or extraordinary circumstances that would excuse his untimely application for asylum. When the agency addressed this question, it applied incorrect legal standards. ■ Accordingly, we grant Singh’s petition for review and remand this matter to the BIA so that it may apply the correct standards.

I

Bhupinder Singh, a citizen and national of India, entered the United States on August 26, 1999, as a nonimmigrant visitor with initial authorization to remain until September 24, 1999. He fled India on account of abuse he suffered at the hands of police in India, who mistakenly believed that he sympathized with terrorists. The police arrested Singh, without a warrant, three times. Each time, they detained him for a lengthy period of time, up to four days, and questioned him about his activities and knowledge of suspected terrorists. When they-detained him, the police severely beat Singh with sticks and leather straps until he lost consciousness. He required medical treatment after each of the three arrests. Singh was released from his…

Concurring Opinion

Rawlinson, J.

concurring in the result:

I agree that this case should be remanded for application of the correct standard to the determination of whether the petitioner has made a sufficient showing of extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. However, I expressly disavow the majority’s holding that the seven-month lapse between the expiration of Singh’s visa extension and the filing of his asylum application is “of little significance.... ” Majority Opinion, p. 1056 n.13. Indeed, the governing regulation is to the contrary. See 65 Fed. Reg. 76121 -01 at 76124 (“Clearly, waiting six months or longer after expiration ... of status would not be considered reasonable ... ”) (emphasis added). The majority’s reliance on' Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1055, 1058 (9th Cir.2009), see Majority Opinion, p. 1056 n.13, is unavailing. In that case, we expressly noted that “Wakkary submitted his asylum application ... six months and some days after his status expired ...” Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1057 (emphasis added). By analogy, Singh submitted his application seven months after his status expired. A determination of unreasonableness in that circumstance is…

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.