Kartar Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KARTAR SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72897
Agency No. A079-561-230
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Kartar Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
MAR 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-72897 2
under 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 grant
the petition for review and remand.
Because the BIA found Singh established past persecution, the government
had the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Singh could
avoid future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1)(ii), 1208.16(b)(1)(ii). In
evaluating changed country conditions, the BIA relied largely on evidence relating
generally to Sikhs and to Akali Dal Mann members or supporters and also found
that Singh was unlikely to be perceived as a hard-core militant based on driving a
truck for Akali Dal Mann. However, the police repeatedly accused Singh of
involvement with militants, during both of his detentions in the Punjab and Jammu
and when the Punjab police visited his family’s home looking for him after he was
released from detention in Jammu. Further, his testimony indicates he is the
subject of ongoing police interest. As the BIA did not take these circumstances
into account, we grant the petition for review and remand Singh’s asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT claims for further proceedings consistent with
this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam);
Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 805-07 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating BIA must provide
individualized analysis of how changed conditions affect specific petitioner’s

-- 2 of 3 --

09-72897 3
situation and remanding where BIA determination was not sufficiently
individualized).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --