Join WhatsApp Channel
Last month, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in Singh v. Blanche (No. 24-815) affirming the denial of asylum to Baljit Singh of Punjab, India – a practicing Sikh and member of a political group called the Shiromani Akali Dal (Mann) party.
Singh said he faced danger from two political groups, the Akali Dal Badal party and the Bharatiya Janata party (BJP), both of which oppose the Mann party. His argument for past persecution was based on an eleven-month period during which he received a vague threat by unknown individuals, two apparently unrelated physical assaults by unknown individuals without serious injuries, and a brief police detention instead of assistance.
However, both the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals found these four instances had a tenuous connection and did not rise to the level of “persecution” as it has been developed by case law. Persecution is an extreme concept that means something considerably more than discrimination or harassment; not all negative treatment equates with persecution.
Threats, without more, do not necessarily compel the finding of past persecution. In Singh’s case, the vague threat was not “specific” or “menacing” enough to make him fear imminent harm. Regarding his two assaults, his injuries were treatable with only a hot compress, an injection of some kind, and oral medication. This lack of serious injuries coupled with minimal treatment and a quick recovery did not compel the finding of past persecution. Finally, the length and quality of Singh’s detention was the relevant consideration, and he was only detained for a single night and was not physically harmed. Viewed separately or cumulatively, this treatment did not rise to the level justifying a grant of asylum.
The 9th Circuit also confirmed that a prior case involving a practicing Sikh and member the Mann party (Sharma v. Garland – 9th Cir. 2021) did not establish “special rule” that applies to all similarly situated individuals. Rather, each asylum claim is evaluated on its individual merits, and successful asylum claims had significantly different instances of persecution. In this case, one judge noted that “several of Singh’s allegations bear a striking resemblance to allegations that other Indian nationals have made in their attempts to obtain asylum.”
Even if Singh had established past persecution, it was still established that he could reasonably relocate within India. The ICE trial attorney submitted a 2018 report from the Law Library of Congress (India: Feasibility of Relocation of Sikhs and Members of the Shiromani Akali Dal (Mann) Party), stating that “[t]here appear to be no legal obstacles for members of the Sikh faith to relocate to other areas of India.” The report also addressed membership in the Mann party and concluded that “internal relocation is feasible” when the person is “not of interest to central authorities,” and that “[o]nly hard-core militants appear to be of interest to central Indian authorities.”
This latest decision from the 9th Circuit demonstrates that the West Coast Circuit is less likely to overrule decisions from Immigration Judges and the BIA than they have been in the past. In a concurrence, Judge VanDyke wrote that to genuinely apply the substantial evidence standard it is to ask one question: “could any reasonable adjudicator … have found as the agency did? That’s a low bar for the agency to clear.”
(The report also states that “depending on the circumstances and financial position of the person, it may be practically difficult to relocate.” This may be relevant for other Sikhs applying for asylum.)
Disclaimer: The opinions and views expressed in this article/column are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of South Asian Herald.
Related posts:
India Criticizes Asylum Seekers for “Slandering” Nation Amid Surge in U.S. Applications
Maryland Reappoints Chung Ki Pak as Chief Administrative Law Judge
Federal Judge Rebukes DOJ as Comey Case Revives Long-Running Feud with Trump
Caught in the Crossfire: How Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Is Reshaping the Indian American Dream
