Labh Singh v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LABH SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71741
Agency No. A070-775-322
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 5, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, CALLAHAN, and HIGGINSON***, Circuit Judges.
Labh Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeal’s denial of his motion to reopen his deportation hearing
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Stephen A. Higginson, United States Circuit Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAR 9 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
based upon changed country conditions.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
1252 and deny the petition.
The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016). Singh’s motion was filed
pursuant to the exception allowing for a motion to reopen beyond the time bar
when the motion is based upon changed country conditions. See 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(3)(ii). The BIA, however, found that Singh was unable to show that the
exception applied in his case because he did not demonstrate materially changed
country conditions in India for Sikhs or members of the Akali Dal Mann party.
Rather, the BIA found that conditions towards Sikhs in India have not materially
changed since Singh’s deportation hearing more than 14 years ago. The evidence
shows that Sikhs do not face increasing hardships in practicing their faith or
accessing services or facilities available to the public. The BIA considered the
evidence of the death of Singh’s brother but noted the discrepancy between the
date alleged in the motion and the date on the death certificate. The BIA
considered Professor Mahmood’s report but gave it limited weight because it
lacked any indication of her sources.
1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we restate only those
necessary to explain our decision.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
For a motion to reopen to be granted the petitioner must establish a prima
facie case for relief. Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2010). For
asylum and withholding of removal relief, the petitioner must establish that he will
be persecuted because of his race, religion, nationality membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 8 U.S.C. §
1231(b)(3)(A). For CAT protection, the petitioner must establish that it is more
likely than not that he will be tortured by or at the instigation of or with the consent
or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. 8
C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1).
The BIA denied relief concluding that Singh was unable to demonstrate
prima facie eligibility for asylum or withholding of deportation to warrant
reopening because the evidence presented did not persuasively demonstrate that
Singh is at risk of persecution based upon his religion or political opinion. The
evidence shows there has been relative peace for Sikhs since 1995, and Sikhs have
won elections to top political posts in India since Singh’s last deportation hearing.
Singh has not shown a reasonable likelihood he will be persecuted or tortured if he
returns to India.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --