Manpreet Singh Brar v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANPREET SINGH BRAR,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70036
Agency No. A205-587-140
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Manpreet Singh Brar, a native citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* 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).
FILED
AUG 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo questions of law. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004). We dismiss in part, deny in part, and grant in part
the petition for review, and we remand.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Brar’s contention that he is entitled to CAT
relief because, as the BIA correctly determined, in his brief to the BIA he failed to
present any arguments as to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. See Barron, 358 F.3d at
677-78.
With respect to Brar’s asylum and withholding of removal claims,
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the threats of harm Brar
suffered in India did not rise to the level of persecution. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales,
399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2005) (threats did not compel finding of past
persecution).
The BIA also found, in the absence of past persecution, the burden of
establishing the reasonableness of relocation did not shift to the Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”) under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i). However, the
answering brief to this court states that the BIA appeared to place the burden of
showing reasonableness of relocation on Brar by looking to the regulation
regarding past persecution, when the “governing regulation” in this case is 8

-- 2 of 3 --

3
C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(ii) (providing a presumption that relocation would not be
reasonable and placing the burden on DHS to show reasonableness of relocation
when persecutor is the government or is government-sponsored). In light of the
government’s concession, we remand Brar’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims for the agency to straighten this out. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18
(2002) (per curiam).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part;
GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --