[00:00:01] Speaker 03: OK, each slide has 10 minutes, and so we're ready for the petitioner. [00:00:05] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:00:08] Speaker 01: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:00:09] Speaker 01: May it please the court, Eno Lipkin, on behalf of the petitioner. [00:00:13] Speaker 01: I'll reserve two minutes for rebuttal if that becomes necessary. [00:00:17] Speaker 01: The cases before the court following a denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals regarding petitioner's claim for asylum based on his religious beliefs as a Sikh [00:00:30] Speaker 01: and his political activities on behalf of the Shiromani Akali Dalman Party. [00:00:35] Speaker 01: He contends he was harmed by the ruling parties as well as the Indian police who falsely detained him. [00:00:43] Speaker 01: And the issues before the court are really whether the petitioner has a well-founded fear of persecution and could he reasonably and safely relocate elsewhere in India. [00:00:57] Speaker 01: The petitioner contends that he maintains a well-founded fear of persecution because his family informed him that members of the ruling parties have come to his home looking for him even after he fled India. [00:01:12] Speaker 01: and went into hiding in Delhi, and he contends it is not reasonable for him to relocate because he could be readily found should he openly resume his political activities for the party. [00:01:24] Speaker 03: Let me take you, since we don't have a lot of time, as you know, the standard of review is quite deferential. [00:01:30] Speaker 03: There must be evidence compelling a contrary conclusion to the BIAs. [00:01:35] Speaker 03: What compels a finding that Mr. Singh could not safely relocate to Delhi? [00:01:41] Speaker 01: His testimony indicating that he had to live in a state of hiding, that he was prevented from openly advocating for the Mon Party and its main goal of a separate Sikh state, which the authorities and the ruling parties deem secessionist, and thus he is denied his ability to [00:02:04] Speaker 01: openly participating in the political process in India, no matter where he would be located. [00:02:11] Speaker 01: Irrespective of his position in the party, that was a contention of the immigration judge. [00:02:17] Speaker 01: speculating that merely due to his low-level status as a Mon Party member, he would not be sought out by authorities, but that is rebutted by his own credible testimony and his documentary proofs that continued support for the party would ignore the wrath of the ruling parties. [00:02:39] Speaker 03: Let me ask you this, because we get a lot of these cases. [00:02:42] Speaker 03: And so let's just assume hypothetically, and this is hypothetical at this point, because we don't have a ruling in this case. [00:02:50] Speaker 03: If we were to reverse the asylum and withholding claims, we must give the BIA an opportunity to rule on the immigration judge's adverse credibility determination. [00:03:02] Speaker 03: Is that right? [00:03:04] Speaker 03: Because he was found, they didn't rule on that, but they could go back and there was evidence of that. [00:03:09] Speaker 03: So that would open that up, right? [00:03:12] Speaker 01: Yes, except here the board specifically stated, assuming the petition. [00:03:18] Speaker 01: I know. [00:03:18] Speaker 03: But if you ask, I mean, be careful what you ask for. [00:03:21] Speaker 03: I'm just saying, be careful what you ask for. [00:03:23] Speaker 03: So what I'm saying, if you get what you ask for, doesn't it open that Pandora's box? [00:03:31] Speaker 03: They didn't make a ruling on it. [00:03:32] Speaker 03: So they could. [00:03:33] Speaker 03: They could, Your Honor. [00:03:36] Speaker 03: OK. [00:03:36] Speaker 03: But then also too, and to be careful what you ask for, is there any authority that would prevent, let's say we say the government needed to put on more here, because I guess they didn't put country reports or whatever. [00:03:49] Speaker 03: Let's say we say, yeah, it's a little sketchy, but if we give you a remand hypothetically, [00:03:58] Speaker 03: Is there any authority that would prevent the government from also presenting additional evidence of conditions for low-level man party supporters in Delhi or putting in a country report? [00:04:10] Speaker 03: Because if we say, hey, we think you needed to do more than you needed to do, even though we don't think that Mr. Man, not Mr. Man, I'm sorry, he said Mr. Singh, that Mr. Singh didn't really, he didn't raise any smoke, is it an open remand? [00:04:29] Speaker 03: Do they get to beef up the record, or are you going to try to tie their hands on that? [00:04:35] Speaker 01: Your honor, if the case is remanded to the board, neither party can submit additional evidence other than respond to a briefing schedule. [00:04:44] Speaker 01: But if there's instructions to remand to the immigration judge, we welcome the opportunity to submit additional country condition evidence. [00:04:52] Speaker 01: And of course, the government is allowed to do the same. [00:04:56] Speaker 03: OK. [00:04:57] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:05:00] Speaker 01: Are there any further questions? [00:05:02] Speaker 02: Let me ask a question. [00:05:04] Speaker 02: In your view, is it up to us to decide if we do remand, whether we remand to the BIA or to the immigration judge, or is that a matter for the agency to decide? [00:05:22] Speaker 01: I think this court has the authority and jurisdiction to remand to the board, and it has the authority to give instructions for the board to send the case back down to the immigration judge. [00:05:37] Speaker 02: All right, so it's not up to us to send it directly to the immigration judge, is that right? [00:05:42] Speaker 01: I believe you have to send it to the board first with instructions. [00:05:49] Speaker 01: Okay, there's nothing further. [00:05:50] Speaker 03: Let me see if there... No, thank you. [00:05:53] Speaker 03: There don't appear to be questions now, so you can reserve any additional time for your rebuttal, okay? [00:05:58] Speaker 03: I will do that. [00:05:58] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:06:06] Speaker 03: You can see the government square, right? [00:06:09] Speaker 03: I can. [00:06:11] Speaker 03: She's shorter than our last person, so she's putting the mic down, so hopefully you'll be able to hear her. [00:06:16] Speaker 00: Relate to the tall before comments that Your Honor made. [00:06:19] Speaker 00: But thank you, Your Honors. [00:06:20] Speaker 00: May it please the Court? [00:06:21] Speaker 00: Katie Roark on behalf of the Attorney General. [00:06:24] Speaker 00: Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that the Department of Homeland Security rebutted the presumption that Petitioner has a well-funded fear of future persecution under the regulatory framework governing internal relocation. [00:06:38] Speaker 00: The board conducted the type of individualized inquiry required by this court's precedent and properly determined that Petitioner could safely relocate to Delhi, as he had done so in the past, and that- You would agree that Akasang says that a person can't safely relocate if they're in hiding the whole time. [00:06:55] Speaker 04: And the petitioner here testified that he was in hiding for the entire 14 months. [00:07:00] Speaker 04: The IJ accepted that as correct. [00:07:02] Speaker 04: So how do we distinguish Akasang? [00:07:04] Speaker 04: Because you don't do that in your brief. [00:07:06] Speaker 00: While Petitioner may have subjectively believed he needed to remain in hiding, the record certainly does not compel that conclusion. [00:07:14] Speaker 00: And in that sense, Petitioner's reliance on Akasung versus Barr is misplaced. [00:07:18] Speaker 00: Akasung had fled her village after she was ordered to marry the village chieftain. [00:07:23] Speaker 04: But isn't it the government's burden to prove the ability to relocate? [00:07:27] Speaker 04: It's not Mr. Singh's burden. [00:07:28] Speaker 00: Correct, I'm just merely distinguishing the facts in Akasung versus the facts present in this case. [00:07:33] Speaker 04: Right, but when you distinguish Akasung, you actually flip the burden, right? [00:07:38] Speaker 04: You said... Anyway, go ahead. [00:07:40] Speaker 03: I won't interrupt you. [00:07:42] Speaker 03: Go ahead, please. [00:07:46] Speaker 03: In that the BIA said you rebutted, and then when there's enough to rebut, but then it comes a rebuttable presumption, then I think that the BIA said the articles and the things that were in the record didn't rebut that. [00:08:05] Speaker 03: So really we have to look at, I think if we focus on did you do enough to rebut that. [00:08:11] Speaker 03: I do not see in this record any of the usual country type of reports to show the safety of the target region. [00:08:22] Speaker 03: What evidence would you cite to show Delhi is safe for low level man party supporters? [00:08:28] Speaker 00: First, Your Honor, I would point out that there's nothing in the regulations or this court's precedent that requires the Department of Homeland Security to submit its own evidence or otherwise prohibits it from relying on evidence that's already in the record. [00:08:41] Speaker 00: And that's what the Department of Homeland Security did here in its closing argument. [00:08:46] Speaker 00: It pointed to aspects of petitioner's testimony that it believed rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear. [00:08:52] Speaker 00: The first was petitioners de minimis role in the man party, and I think it's important to look at the facts here and the timeline of his involvement. [00:08:59] Speaker 00: He started supporting the man party in January 2011. [00:09:03] Speaker 00: He was a party worker who put up political posters and spoke at two rallies in February and August of 2011. [00:09:09] Speaker 00: He fled for Punjab to Delhi in December 2011 and 14 months later came to the United States. [00:09:16] Speaker 00: His involvement with the party has not substantially increased since coming to the United States. [00:09:20] Speaker 00: He had testified that he attended two rallies in 2018. [00:09:24] Speaker 04: But you would agree under Singh v. Whitaker, there's a nationwide presumption. [00:09:29] Speaker 04: So how does the government overcome that presumption? [00:09:32] Speaker 00: So based on the facts that I just discussed, the agency had included that it was unlikely for Petitioner to be of interest to the police in Delhi, even if he continued working or supporting the party there. [00:09:45] Speaker 04: But based on what specific evidence? [00:09:47] Speaker 04: I know you're just saying the facts that he was low level, but what evidence supports? [00:09:51] Speaker 00: So there is country conditions evidence in the record that does support that conclusion. [00:09:55] Speaker 03: I couldn't find a country report in this record. [00:10:00] Speaker 03: Where is that? [00:10:01] Speaker 00: There are mostly news articles submitted by producers. [00:10:04] Speaker 03: Okay, just slow down. [00:10:07] Speaker 03: Is there a country report in this record? [00:10:13] Speaker 00: Not that I'm aware of, Your Honor. [00:10:14] Speaker 00: I believe it was just the news articles that were submitted by petitioner. [00:10:18] Speaker 00: But I can point to a couple of articles that the court could reference that show that the interest, at least for Punjabi authorities, is either in high-profile activists and leaders or those who have been suspected of being involved in terrorism. [00:10:34] Speaker 00: So a couple articles that discuss this point. [00:10:37] Speaker 00: Are they in the record? [00:10:38] Speaker 00: They are in the record. [00:10:39] Speaker 03: So and they but did they put them in did you put them in the record or did they petitioner? [00:10:45] Speaker 03: These are petitioners, but I I'm hearing your argument to be that the court looks at the whole record correct and so you can actually you can if the petitioner puts in things that are good for you that the BIA can pull them out and [00:11:02] Speaker 00: Correct, Your Honor. [00:11:03] Speaker 00: The immigration judge is allowed to rely on the whole record. [00:11:06] Speaker 00: And again, there's nothing that prevents them from the Department of Homeland Security in the regulation from pointing to evidence that is already in the record. [00:11:14] Speaker 00: All that is required is that the Department of Homeland Security show by a preponderance of the evidence that the non-citizen could avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of the country. [00:11:25] Speaker 03: So his articles that he put in the record for the purpose of showing that people [00:11:32] Speaker 03: are persecuted or what you're saying is you can look at them and say well these were terrorists and he's not a terrorist so therefore it not only doesn't support what he's saying but it supports what you're saying [00:11:48] Speaker 00: Correct, Your Honor. [00:11:49] Speaker 00: It supports the immigration judge's finding that because Petitioner was this low-level individual and that there was no evidence that he was labeled as a militant by Punjabi authorities, that he would be unlikely to be of interest to the authorities in Delhi. [00:12:02] Speaker 04: But the IJ decision and the BIA decision, they just assume that because he's low-level, there'll be no interest in him. [00:12:09] Speaker 04: I don't recall any citation to any evidence. [00:12:11] Speaker 04: The immigration, I mean... What are you... Give me some record sites, please, for whatever you're relying on. [00:12:17] Speaker 00: Obviously, for the interest in people that are involved in terrorism, there are articles at page 257, 267 through 268, 311, 316 through 317, 327 through 328. [00:12:32] Speaker 04: But I guess you're saying they're interested in terrorists. [00:12:36] Speaker 04: But that doesn't mean they're not interested in low-level man supporters. [00:12:41] Speaker 04: Do you see what I'm saying? [00:12:42] Speaker 04: No, I understand what you're saying. [00:12:43] Speaker 04: So give me the evidence that says they will not pursue a low-level man party supporter. [00:12:49] Speaker 04: That's really what I'm looking for. [00:12:51] Speaker 04: We can all say, oh, OK, well, a mass murder, they're going to be looking for that person. [00:12:55] Speaker 04: But where is the evidence for this specific finding? [00:12:59] Speaker 00: And then in terms of, like, [00:13:01] Speaker 00: people in the party that they would be more interested in. [00:13:04] Speaker 00: The country conditions evidence shows that they are interested in high-profile activists and leaders. [00:13:10] Speaker 04: But there's no country conditions report in this record. [00:13:13] Speaker 00: The news articles that were submitted is what I'm referring to. [00:13:15] Speaker 00: That what? [00:13:16] Speaker 00: Their news articles, their various articles. [00:13:19] Speaker 03: Okay, but why didn't you put a country report in? [00:13:22] Speaker 00: And again, the Department of Homeland Security was not required to do that, and they relied on petitioners' own testimony. [00:13:28] Speaker 03: Well, I know you're not required to, but then if you end up here, we're going to say, did you show that he could safely relocate? [00:13:37] Speaker 03: And if you're saying in country condition reports, you run the risk of you can say, well, we don't have a requirement to, but you do have a requirement to show that he can safely relocate. [00:13:50] Speaker 03: And so it's... [00:13:52] Speaker 00: I do understand, Your Honor, that it does make sense. [00:13:55] Speaker 03: There's a point where you can go too light. [00:13:57] Speaker 00: I do understand, Your Honor, that it would perhaps be easier if the Department of Homeland Security had submitted its own evidence. [00:14:04] Speaker 00: But again, it was not required to do so. [00:14:06] Speaker 00: And I do think the evidence in the record supports the immigration judge's findings. [00:14:11] Speaker 00: I would like to go back to Judge Coe's point on Akasung versus Barr just to distinguish it. [00:14:15] Speaker 00: Again, she had fled her village because she had been ordered to marry her village chieftain. [00:14:19] Speaker 00: The chieftain had his envoys consistently pursue her from location to location. [00:14:24] Speaker 00: She had been able to live with a relative in Dora. [00:14:28] Speaker 04: Can we talk about what the IJ did here? [00:14:29] Speaker 04: It seemed like the IJ relied a lot on the host family of Mr. Singh and said, look, they're Sikh, they're man party supporters, they're openly and notoriously traveling all throughout Delhi, and there's no trouble. [00:14:41] Speaker 04: Well, the problem is, [00:14:44] Speaker 04: that they were not members of the man party and that basis to find thus a member of a man party will not be persecuted in Delhi was erroneous. [00:14:54] Speaker 04: Even the BIA acknowledged there's no evidence that these host family members were man party members. [00:15:02] Speaker 04: So I guess I'm unclear [00:15:05] Speaker 04: So how it both meets your burden to prove safe relocation and also overcomes the nationwide presumption that there wouldn't be persecution nationwide. [00:15:17] Speaker 00: So I would argue that the board did acknowledge that the political affiliation of these individuals was unknown, but they were similarly situated in the sense that at least the son was of the similar age group, and they were of the same religion. [00:15:32] Speaker 04: But that's not the basis of persecution, right? [00:15:34] Speaker 04: It wasn't based on his age or the fact that he was Sikh. [00:15:37] Speaker 04: The persecution was based on his man party. [00:15:40] Speaker 00: So his claim was based on both his religion? [00:15:42] Speaker 03: It was based on both. [00:15:43] Speaker 03: It was both. [00:15:44] Speaker 03: So it would go to the Sikh part of it. [00:15:47] Speaker 00: Correct, Your Honor. [00:15:48] Speaker 00: And this wasn't the only factor that the agency relied on in reaching the conclusion that relocation was safe. [00:15:53] Speaker 03: Let me ask you this. [00:15:55] Speaker 03: Hypothetically, if we were to remand it, and I ask this of your friend on the other side, can the board? [00:16:02] Speaker 03: The board didn't deal with the adverse credibility. [00:16:06] Speaker 03: Can the board deal with the adverse credibility then? [00:16:08] Speaker 00: Yes, it could. [00:16:09] Speaker 00: It did say that it assumed credibility, but without deciding the issue. [00:16:13] Speaker 00: So in that instance, if the court were to rescind it back, the board would have the opportunity to address it in the first instance. [00:16:21] Speaker 03: And what if we said, okay, you just got a little too slim here on this record. [00:16:27] Speaker 03: On a remand, can you add to the record? [00:16:30] Speaker 03: Your friend on the other side said you can't at the BIA. [00:16:33] Speaker 00: At the BIA level, no, but if it were to go back to the immigration judge, they could supplement the record at that point. [00:16:41] Speaker 03: If there are no- Okay, I think, Judge Decima, did you have a question? [00:16:46] Speaker 00: No, we don't have any other questions. [00:16:47] Speaker 00: If there were no further questions, then based on our arguments here today and in our answering brief, we would respectfully ask the court to deny the petition for review. [00:16:55] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:16:55] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:16:58] Speaker 03: All right, we'll go back to the petitioner. [00:17:01] Speaker 03: You have four minutes and 10 seconds left if you want to add anything. [00:17:06] Speaker 01: Your Honor, we rest. [00:17:07] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:17:08] Speaker 04: Actually, why do you? [00:17:09] Speaker 04: I have some questions. [00:17:10] Speaker 04: Why don't you address the news articles that the government council referenced? [00:17:17] Speaker 04: Do they support the government's position? [00:17:19] Speaker 01: No, we argue that the documents that are included, for example, in Exhibit 6 that start at Car 299 contain numerous articles about oppositional [00:17:35] Speaker 01: figures that the government targeted for harm not all mon-party supporters but just those that are deemed oppositional that are harmed and unlawfully arrested. [00:17:46] Speaker 03: Well, but he put in articles about terrorists that they were interested in and he clearly doesn't [00:17:54] Speaker 03: It gets tricky here, because how do you prove a negative? [00:17:57] Speaker 03: He's clearly not a terrorist, so showing that they're after terrorists doesn't necessarily show that they're after him. [00:18:05] Speaker 03: And I think what your friend on the other side is saying is, [00:18:10] Speaker 03: Well, the BIA and the IJ, they can consider everything, and the inference from that, just because he's not a terrorist, it's not, you know, the question is, are we flipping the burden here, or does that prove that they're only interested in terrorists? [00:18:32] Speaker 03: I don't have an answer, but I think that's what Judge Coe's getting at, too. [00:18:38] Speaker 01: I would argue that the petitioner credibly testified he was accused of being a colostani. [00:18:44] Speaker 03: He explained that a colostani- Well, right now he credibly testified because I didn't make a finding. [00:18:50] Speaker 03: that we don't know where that's going to go. [00:18:53] Speaker 01: Well, to explain the question about terrorism, he claimed that he was accused of being a Kalistani. [00:19:01] Speaker 01: He explained that being deemed a Kalistani in the viewpoint of the ruling parties or the Indian police, [00:19:09] Speaker 01: is to characterize a person as anti-national and thus a terrorist. [00:19:15] Speaker 01: So though he is not a terrorist and nothing in the record suggests that he is, he claims that if he were to relocate or remain in the Punjab and continue to openly support the Man Party, he would again become the target [00:19:33] Speaker 01: of the ruling parties and the police to squash his, what is deemed oppositional, or in other words, terrorist-like activities as he advocates for the creation of Calistan, a separate Sikh state. [00:19:48] Speaker 01: So on that basis, he would be viewed as a terrorist, and he had submitted documents in Exhibit 6 to show that Sikh activists, which he was one, were harmed due [00:20:00] Speaker 01: to these decessionist beliefs. [00:20:04] Speaker 03: All right. [00:20:04] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:20:06] Speaker 03: We don't appear to have further questions unless you want to say something else. [00:20:10] Speaker 03: We'll submit it. [00:20:11] Speaker 01: Thank you so much. [00:20:12] Speaker 01: Nothing further. [00:20:13] Speaker 03: All right. [00:20:14] Speaker 03: Thank you both for your arguments in this matter. [00:20:16] Speaker 03: This case will stand submitted.