Singh

discussion appear to fault Singh for failing to produce evidence showing that

relocation would not be safe. For example, the IJ found that Singh’s evidence had

not “establish[ed] that [his persecutors] could use the tenant verification system or

Aadhaar card information to learn of [his] whereabouts upon his relocation in

India.” It is therefore unclear whether the agency impermissibly shifted the burden

of proof to Singh. “[T]he presence of evidence favorable to [Singh] is not what is

determinative here . . . . If the government’s . . . evidence fails to rebut the

presumption that relocation is [unsafe], the presumption must stand.” Afriyie v.

Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 935–36 (9th Cir. 2010) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Navas

v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 662 (9th Cir. 2000)), overruled on other grounds by Bringas-

Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

“Because of the IJ’s lack of clarity” as to which party was required to show

that Singh could or could not safely relocate, we remand Singh’s asylum claim

based on his membership in the family of Balkar Singh to the agency “to ensure

that it evaluates the relocation issue in accord with the proper burden…