Gurpreet Singh v. U.S. Attorney General

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11070
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
GURPREET SINGH,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
____________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A216-176-673
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11070 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 03/08/2024 Page: 1 of 8

-- 1 of 8 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11070
Before J ORDAN, L AGOA, and B LACK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gurpreet Singh seeks review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (BIA) final order affirming the denial of his application for
asylum and withholding of removal. Singh contends the denial of
asylum and withholding of removal was not supported by substan-
tial evidence because he demonstrated he suffered repeated mis-
treatment by members of a political party that rose to the level of
persecution, and he demonstrated a well-founded fear of future
persecution based on his political opinion. After review,1 we deny
the petition.
I. DISCUSSION
The Attorney General may grant asylum to a non-citizen
who is outside his country of nationality, unwilling to return, and
unable to avail himself of its protection because of persecution or
a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(A); 1101(a)(42)(A). The asylum
1 Because the BIA adopted the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision, we review
both the BIA and IJ’s decisions. See Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1230
(11th Cir. 2006). We review factual determinations under the substantial evi-
dence standard, “which provides that the decision can be reversed only if evi-
dence compels a reasonable fact finder to find otherwise.” Lyashchynska v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 676 F.3d 962, 967 (11th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted). We
must affirm if the BIA’s decision is supported by reasonable, substantial, and
probative evidence when the record is considered as a whole. Id.
USCA11 Case: 23-11070 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 03/08/2024 Page: 2 of 8

-- 2 of 8 --

23-11070 Opinion of the Court 3
applicant carries the burden of proving statutory “refugee” status.
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Diallo v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 596 F.3d 1329,
1332 (11th Cir. 2010).
A. Past Persecution
Persecution is an extreme concept that is evaluated by con-
sidering the cumulative impact of the harms suffered by the peti-
tioner. Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1353 (11th Cir.
2009). Serious physical injury is not required to prove past perse-
cution where the petitioner demonstrates repeated threats com-
bined with other forms of serious mistreatment. De Santamaria v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 999, 1009 (11th Cir. 2008).
In Mejia, we concluded the petitioner suffered persecution
where he was the target of attempted attacks over an 18‑month
period, received multiple death threats, and was physically at-
tacked twice, once when a large rock was thrown at him and once
when members of the gang targeting him broke his nose with the
butt of a rifle. Mejia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 498 F.3d 1253, 1257‑58 (11th
Cir. 2007). We concluded “the threats and attacks the petitioners
suffered were neither isolated nor simply harassment.” Id. at 1257
(quotation marks omitted). Conversely, in Djonda, we concluded
the record did not compel a finding the petitioner suffered past per-
secution where the petitioner was threatened with imprisonment,
detained for 36 hours in a small cell shared by 12 people, and was
beaten twice, once involving a belt and resulting in scratches and
bruises. Djonda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1168, 1171‑74 (11th Cir.
USCA11 Case: 23-11070 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 03/08/2024 Page: 3 of 8

-- 3 of 8 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-11070
2008). We concluded that minor beatings and verbal threats did
not compel a finding of past persecution. Id. at 1174.
Moreover, violence accompanying “a credible death threat
by a person who has the immediate ability to act on it constitutes
persecution regardless of whether the threat is successfully carried
out.” Diallo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 596 F.3d 1329, 1333-34 (11th Cir.
2010) (finding past persecution where the petitioner suffered a mi-
nor beating and was detained for eleven hours, but was also threat-
ened with death by the same soldiers who also killed his brother).
See also De Santamaria v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 999, 1009 & n.7
(11th Cir. 2008) (“We may consider a threatening act against an-
other [the murder of the petitioner’s family groundskeeper] as evi-
dence that the petitioner suffered persecution where that act con-
comitantly threatens the petitioner.”); Delgado v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
487 F.3d 855, 859-61 (11th Cir. 2007) (finding persecution based on
cumulative effect of two attacks (including one attack where the
attackers pointed unloaded guns at the petitioners and pulled the
triggers), continued threatening phone calls, and two instances of
the petitioner’s car being disabled and vandalized with political
graffiti).
The BIA did not err in adopting the IJ’s decision to deny
Singh’s application for asylum and withholding of removal.2
2 “To be entitled to withholding of removal, the petitioner[ ] must meet a
higher evidentiary threshold than the well-founded fear standard for asylum.”
Jathursan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 17 F.4th 1365, 1375 (11th Cir. 2021). “Specifically,
the petitioner must establish that he or she would more likely than not be
persecuted on account of a protected ground.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).
USCA11 Case: 23-11070 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 03/08/2024 Page: 4 of 8

-- 4 of 8 --

23-11070 Opinion of the Court 5
Despite finding Singh credible, the IJ determined the two attacks
suffered by Singh did not rise to the level of persecution. Singh
testified he was attacked twice, suffering bruising from the first in-
cident and wounds to his arms from the second. His attackers also
threatened to kill him if he continued working for the Mann Party,
and Singh testified that after he left India, men went into his par-
ent’s house asking his whereabouts and attacked his parents and
sister.
We have determined that similar minor beatings and threats
did not amount to persecution. See Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 1352-
53; Djonda, 514 F.3d at 1171-74. And while we have held that cred-
ible death threats paired with violence can constitute past persecu-
tion, the facts of Singh’s case do not rise to the level of those in
Diallo, De Santamaria, and Delgado. Diallo, 596 F.3d at 1333-34; De
Santamaria, 525 F.3d at 1009; Delgado, 487 F.3d at 859-61. The IJ
likened Singh’s injuries to a street fight and noted this does not
meet the extreme threshold of persecution. Viewing the record in
the light most favorable to the agency, the evidence here, which
consists only of Singh’s testimony, does not compel a finding con-
trary to the IJ’s finding. See Sanchez Jimenez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 492
F.3d 1223, 1230 (11th Cir. 2007) (stating, under the substantial evi-
dence standard, we “view the record evidence in the light most fa-
vorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences
in favor of that decision” (quotation marks omitted)). Singh has
A petitioner who fails to meet the burden of proof for asylum generally cannot
meet the higher burden of proof for withholding of removal. Id.
USCA11 Case: 23-11070 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 03/08/2024 Page: 5 of 8

-- 5 of 8 --

6 Opinion of the Court 23-11070
not shown error in the denial of asylum and withholding of re-
moval relief based on past persecution. Accordingly, we deny his
petition as to this issue.
B. Future Persecution
A well-founded fear of future persecution may be estab-
lished by showing: (1) past persecution that creates a presumption
of a “well-founded fear” of future persecution; (2) a reasonable pos-
sibility of personal persecution on account of a protected ground
that cannot be avoided by relocating within the subject country; or
(3) a pattern or practice in the subject country of persecuting mem-
bers of a statutorily defined group of which the alien is a part. 8
C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1), (2). To show future persecution in the ab-
sence of past persecution, a petitioner must show his well-founded
fear of future persecution is subjectively genuine and objectively
reasonable. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1257 (11th Cir.
2006). “The subjective component is generally satisfied by the ap-
plicant’s credible testimony that he or she genuinely fears persecu-
tion.” De Santamaria v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 999, 1007 (11th Cir.
2008) (quotation marks omitted). The objective prong is generally
satisfied by showing the applicant “has a good reason to fear future
persecution.” Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1257 (quotation marks omitted).
To establish a “pattern or practice” of persecution based on mem-
bership in a group, the applicant must show “extreme and perva-
sive” persecution. Lingeswaran v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 969 F.3d 1278,
1290-91 (11th Cir. 2020).
USCA11 Case: 23-11070 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 03/08/2024 Page: 6 of 8

-- 6 of 8 --

23-11070 Opinion of the Court 7
An alien does not have a well-founded fear if he could avoid
persecution by reasonably relocating within his country. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(2)(ii). The reasonableness of relocation depends upon
all the circumstances, including the country’s size; the geographic
locus of the persecution; the size, numerosity, and reach of the per-
secutor; and the applicant’s demonstrated ability to relocate to the
United States. Id. (b)(3).
As discussed above, Singh did not establish past persecution
such as would create a presumption of a “well-founded fear” of fu-
ture persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1), (2). Therefore, Singh
must demonstrate his fear of future persecution is subjectively gen-
uine and objectively reasonable. See Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1257. The IJ
found Singh credible, which satisfies the first prong, but Singh’s tes-
timony supports the IJ’s finding that Singh’s fear is not objectively
reasonable. See De Santamaria, 525 F.3d at 1007. Singh is a young,
low-level, non-militant worker such that he is unlikely to be tar-
geted on an individual basis. Additionally, Singh could reasonably
relocate within India to avoid future harm, as is evidenced by his
travel to Delhi and ability to stay there several days before leaving
the country. Singh appears to have the financial means to relocate,
since he was able to travel to the United States with an agent hired
by his family. In total, this suffices as evidence that Singh’s fear of
future persecution is not objectively reasonable. Because Singh
fails to establish the well-founded fear of persecution required for
asylum, he also fails to meet the burden of proof for withholding
of removal. See Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 1352 (stating if an applicant
cannot meet the well-founded fear standard of asylum, he generally
USCA11 Case: 23-11070 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 03/08/2024 Page: 7 of 8

-- 7 of 8 --

8 Opinion of the Court 23-11070
will not be qualified for withholding of removal). As such, we deny
his petition as to this issue.
II. CONCLUSION
The BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence be-
cause two relatively minor attacks not resulting in serious injury
do not rise to the level of persecution, and Singh did not demon-
strate an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution because
he is able to safely relocate within India. We deny his petition.3
PETITION DENIED.
3 Singh also contends the IJ erred in finding he was harmed for reasons other
than his political opinion. Even if Singh established that his political opinion is
a central reason behind the attacks, his claim fails because he failed to demon-
strate past persecution or a well‑founded fear of future persecution.
USCA11 Case: 23-11070 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 03/08/2024 Page: 8 of 8

-- 8 of 8 --