Harvinderjit Sahi v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A200-841-112. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999598461]. Mailed to: Petitioner. [15-1173]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-1173 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/09/2015 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1173 HARVINDERJIT SINGH SAHI, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: May 29, 2015 Decided: June 9, 2015 Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harvinderjit Singh Sahi, Petitioner Pro Se. Sheri Robyn Glaser, Benjamin C. Mizer, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-1173 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/09/2015 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Harvinderjit Singh Sahi, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) judge’s denial removal, (“CAT”). and dismissing of his protection his appeal requests under for the from the asylum, Convention immigration withholding Against of Torture We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the various documentary exhibits relevant to communal violence, and the transcript substantial of Sahi’s evidence merits supports hearing. the Board’s We conclude decision. that INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (stating standard of review). Regarding Sahi’s claim that he suffered past persecution, the record does not compel the conclusion that the Indian government and the police were consistently unable or unwilling to intervene when Sahi was the victim of communal violence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012); Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 128 (4th Cir. 2011). As the Board noted, Sahi never reported any of the incidents of alleged persecution to the police. See, e.g., Mulyani v. Holder, 771 F.3d 190, 198–99 (4th Cir. 2014) (where the petitioner’s claim was undermined by her failure authority). to contact the police or any other government Moreover, Sahi submitted no evidence corroborating 2 Appeal: 15-1173 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/09/2015 Pg: 3 of 4 his belief that Indian police are ineffective at investigating religious violence or are somehow complicit in that violence. Further, the record does not compel the conclusion that Sahi’s fear that he will be persecuted if he returns to India is objectively reasonable or that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured after his return. Sahi cannot meet either the subjective or objective component of this standard. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004). See Sahi’s subjective fear of persecution is undermined by his decision to return to India twice after visits to the United States. See, e.g., Ritonga v. Holder, 633 F.3d 971, 977 (10th Cir. 2011) (where return trips to the petitioner’s home country undermined her claim that she had a subjective fear of persecution). Moreover, as we have noted, the independent evidence submitted by Sahi does not suggest that police are unwilling or unable to intervene, to investigate, or to make arrests in instances of religious violence. Because substantial evidence supports the finding that Sahi did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution, we will not disturb the Board’s decisions regarding Sahi’s petition for asylum or withholding of removal. See Yi Ni v. Holder, 613 F.3d 415, 427 (4th Cir. 2010) (reiterating the rule that, because withholding 3 of removal requires a higher Appeal: 15-1173 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/09/2015 Pg: 4 of 4 burden of proof, “an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal”). We also will not disturb the Board’s decision regarding Sahi’s request for protection under the CAT. To qualify for that protection, a petitioner must show that it is more likely than not he would be tortured upon return to his home country, and that torture would be with the acquiescence of a public official. Zelaya v. Holder, 668 F.3d 159, 167 (4th Cir. 2012). As we have noted, Sahi has not shown that the communal violence he suffered, or that he fears suffering on return to India, occurred or would occur with the acquiescence of a public official. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?