[00:00:02] Speaker 04:
Is counsel ready in this case? There we go. Okay. Ms. Baer, are you able to hear us?

[00:00:11] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honor. Yes, I can hear you, and we are ready.

[00:00:14] Speaker 04:
Okay. And do we have counsel for the government as well?

[00:00:19] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:00:20] Speaker 04:
Okay. Yes, Judge. Thank you. Good morning. You can just keep your video on, sir, so we can see everyone. And Judge Wardlaw, are you able to hear us all? Yes.

[00:00:28] Speaker 02:
Yes, thank you.

[00:00:29] Speaker 04:
Okay, great. Ms. Baer, good morning. You may proceed.

[00:00:32] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honor. We're asking that the court find that the petitioner here has met the standard for a change of circumstances such that the change of circumstances are country conditions and not personal circumstances. The government argues that the petitioner affected the circumstances such that that would be a He had induced it, and that would make it a personal circumstance.

[00:01:04] Speaker 03:
This is a miscategorization, misapplication of the law. The respondent had initially become a member of the Congress party, but the change in circumstances was not affected by him at all.

[00:01:17] Speaker 03:
There's a worsening of the circumstances in India for members of the Congress party, and we're asking that the court grant his application.

[00:01:27] Speaker 04:
What is the status of your clients? So Mr. Singh, I understand, is no longer in the United States?

[00:01:35] Speaker 03:
That is correct, Your Honor.

[00:01:36] Speaker 04:
Is he reachable?

[00:01:38] Speaker 03:
He has not been reachable since April 7th of 2026. Was he deported or did he leave voluntarily? My understanding is that he was deported.

[00:01:51] Speaker 04:
That was by accident?

[00:01:53] Speaker 03:
That was by accident.

[00:01:55] Speaker 04:
What's the status of the other petitioners?

[00:01:58] Speaker 03:
They, I believe, are also in India.

[00:02:02] Speaker 04:
The mother and the daughter?

[00:02:04] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:02:05] Speaker 04:
Are they reachable?

[00:02:07] Speaker 03:
They have not been reachable also since April 7th, 2026.

[00:02:12] Speaker 04:
Did they voluntarily leave the United States or were they removed?

[00:02:15] Speaker 03:
I believe they voluntarily left.

[00:02:22] Speaker 04:
The BIA treated the attacks on the petitioner's parents as a change in personal circumstances rather than a change in country conditions.

[00:02:33] Speaker 04:
And I take your position is that that was erroneous. Why do you argue that?

[00:02:38] Speaker 03:
Because the respondent did not do any, I'm sorry, the petitioner did not do anything to affect the circumstances. It's a general worsening or is it a worsening of the country conditions for people who are members or had been members of the Congress party. So of course, every change of circumstance for an asylum seeker is going to have a personal consequence, a personal circumstance attached to it. But in this case, the respondent, the petitioner did meet the standard for the change, the country conditions change of circumstance under the law.

[00:03:14] Speaker 04:
What is the substantiation for this, for saying that there were these attacks? What evidence has he brought forward to make this allegation?

[00:03:22] Speaker 03:
Just his personal statement.

[00:03:25] Speaker 04:
And how did he find out about this?

[00:03:28] Speaker 03:
Through his parents.

[00:03:30] Speaker 04:
Have they submitted anything?

[00:03:32] Speaker 02:
They have not.

[00:03:33] Speaker 02:
Ms. Baer, are you – do you work for – Jaspreet Singh's office?

[00:03:42] Speaker 03:
I do appearances on his behalf, Your Honor.

[00:03:46] Speaker 02:
Okay, so you're appearing here today on behalf of Mr. Singh?

[00:03:53] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:03:54] Speaker 02:
And did he move to withdraw his counsel? He did.

[00:03:59] Speaker 02:
And can you tell us anything about that motion?

[00:04:03] Speaker 03:
Yes, so we had sought to, or he had sought to withdraw. when the petitioner became unavailable and lacked cooperation. When that was denied, he asked me to appear today since the petitioner was denied or the motion was denied, Your Honor.

[00:04:22] Speaker 04:
Well, it wasn't denied. It was deferred. But do you still maintain that it should be granted?

[00:04:27] Speaker 03:
Yes, that is what we are asking.

[00:04:30] Speaker 03:
And why is that?

[00:04:33] Speaker 03:
because he has been unable to provide us with any evidence. And even if the case were to be remanded, he has expressed that the last time that Mr. Singh spoke to him, that he's not interested in returning back to the United States.

[00:04:53] Speaker 02:
So, but has he withdrawn his petition for review? He has not.

[00:05:00] Speaker 03:
That would have required an additional conversation with the petitioner that we were unable to have.

[00:05:09] Speaker 02:
So you're just abandoning your client?

[00:05:12] Speaker 03:
I am not, Your Honor. I mean, I am happy to move forward and I'm prepared to do so today. But the client has abandoned us. So he has not discussed anymore with us. We are unable to withdraw his case without his consent.

[00:05:31] Speaker 03:
before the case was set for the oral argument today, then we had sought to withdraw, which was the only thing that we could do. But I'm here today, Your Honor. Mr. Singh has asked me to again renew that motion, and if it's denied, then I'm happy to go forward.

[00:05:50] Speaker 01:
And do you have any indication as to whether the other petitioners, have you been able to speak with them as to whether they wish to pursue the petition for review as well?

[00:05:59] Speaker 03:
We have not been able to communicate with any of the other attached riders.

[00:06:04] Speaker 04:
Do you believe it's possible to contact them somehow or you really don't even know how to get in touch with them?

[00:06:16] Speaker 03:
So because they're in India, the only information that we have is the address and the Mr. Gurjeet Singh's phone number that he was using to communicate with us.

[00:06:30] Speaker 03:
We could try and obtain a letter, Your Honor, or send a letter, Your Honor. The mailing system in India is a little bit different, but we have no other way of communicating with them.

[00:06:42] Speaker 04:
And have you let them know or sent them notice that you intend to withdraw or wish to withdraw?

[00:06:48] Speaker 03:
We did send them via the messaging, text messaging on Mr. Gurjeet Singh's phone that we had intended to withdraw.

[00:06:57] Speaker 01:
And was that responded to?

[00:06:59] Speaker 03:
It was not.

[00:07:05] Speaker 04:
Okay. Well, unless my colleagues have other questions for you, maybe we will let you save the rest of your time for rebuttal and we'll hear from the United States.

[00:07:16] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor. Very quick on behalf of the respondent. Your Honors, I wanted to start just by responding to the court's directed question on whether the board erred in finding those two incidents from 2025 were indeed a change in personal circumstances rather than in country conditions. The board did not err.

[00:07:39] Speaker 00:
Respondent is unaware of and petitioners don't point to any decision in this court where one visit to family members, which remember already happened at the merit stage, And then one beating three months thereafter reflects a material change in country conditions. And I wanted to answer the court's question really.

[00:07:59] Speaker 04:
Just to pause you there, though. I mean, is that the ground for the BIA's decision that this was not material?

[00:08:07] Speaker 00:
They do talk about that there were no material change in country conditions. Yes.

[00:08:14] Speaker 00:
On page four.

[00:08:15] Speaker 04:
Right. But I mean, in discussing the attacks...

[00:08:19] Speaker 04:
on petitioners' parents, they also refer to it as a change in personal circumstances rather than a change in country conditions.

[00:08:30] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:08:31] Speaker 04:
So is your position that that's correct or that that's incorrect but can be resolved through some other way?

[00:08:37] Speaker 00:
Well, we're assuming here that the board meant what it said here, that it's a change in personal circumstances, but it really doesn't change the court's calculus because we have to understand that To be the change in personal circumstances, it must not be self-induced. And personal circumstance changes alone are never sufficient. But most importantly, they're helpful to the extent that they reflect or they inform record evidence of material change country conditions particular to this petition.

[00:09:10] Speaker 04:
How was this a change in personal circumstances?

[00:09:15] Speaker 00:
We did not examine how that is. The board determined that part of the claim.

[00:09:20] Speaker 04:
But how is that correct? I mean, I'm just asking, do you agree with this?

[00:09:26] Speaker 00:
I don't disagree. I don't I have not briefed that particular issue of whether the board erred in that particular circumstance.

[00:09:32] Speaker 04:
But isn't that the question in the case? I mean, that's what they said.

[00:09:37] Speaker 00:
They did say the question in the case is whether then we have the requisite change country conditions that are relevant to him.

[00:09:46] Speaker 00:
And we do not have that at all.

[00:09:48] Speaker 01:
But, Counsel, I guess what Judge Bress is getting at with his questions, and I'm not sure I'm hearing an answer to it, is if the BIA applies an erroneous legal standard by assuming that the visits were personal conditions as opposed to country conditions, wouldn't that be an abuse of discretion?

[00:10:10] Speaker 01:
And if it's not, then what makes this outside of petitioners' families' control or within their control?

[00:10:19] Speaker 00:
Well, we did cite, and I think perhaps it is a bit helpful, to the Sarinder Kumar case on our brief on page 22, although it's unreported. And that was also a situation in which there was an untimely motion, an affidavit that family members had been approached asking about this person's whereabouts. And the court did there find it was a change in personal circumstances, but personal circumstances alone, and that there were no requisite accompanying material change country conditions.

[00:10:52] Speaker 00:
So this is not an outlier necessarily on how the board examines this and how this court has done so as well with approaching family members in the country of origin. And declaring them to be personal.

[00:11:05] Speaker 04:
How if authorities go to somebody's family house and attack them, how is that a change in personal circumstances as opposed to a change in the conditions in the country?

[00:11:16] Speaker 00:
It's certainly not a change in condition country conditions. I suppose that it was after. The merits hearing and that the change here was that this time the parents were beaten. whereas before they were only approached or questioned.

[00:11:36] Speaker 02:
Right, but that's not within the control of the petitioner, right?

[00:11:40] Speaker 00:
That is not within his control, exactly, which is why the court or the board determined that this is a change in personal circumstances, because they can't be self-induced.

[00:11:50] Speaker 02:
How is it self-induced?

[00:11:53] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, Your Honor?

[00:11:54] Speaker 02:
How is it self-induced?

[00:11:56] Speaker 00:
It is not self-induced here, no. And the board made no such finding. The self-induced would be people who, for instance, would have, and I think the Najumbani case we cite is illustrative. That's where a Chinese family has another child in this country and then talks about Chinese family planning conditions. That, this court says, is a self-induced change.

[00:12:21] Speaker 00:
This is quite different than that. Not only was it not himself, but it didn't happen in this country. It's not a self-induced change necessarily.

[00:12:30] Speaker 04:
Well, I guess I kind of agree with you, but then I'm wondering where do we go from here if it seems like maybe we're actually in agreement that some aspect of the BIA's analysis is not on firm footing?

[00:12:43] Speaker 00:
I don't say it's not on firm footing because it's not – there are certainly cases in this court, albeit unreported, that have much the same analysis or finding. So it's not without some degree of – unreported precedent, Your Honor.

[00:13:00] Speaker 04:
On what basis do you think this issue can be resolved in your favor?

[00:13:05] Speaker 00:
I think it can be resolved in our favor if we just then go on to the material change in country conditions. And that's by looking at exactly what record evidence was presented with the motion to reopen. We have Mr. Singh's own statement, And remember, he doesn't talk about the two incidents particularly. He says nothing about an allegation of changed country conditions particular to him. He offers vague generalities of increase in human violence.

[00:13:38] Speaker 00:
And there's no comparison about how conditions would change from the merits hearing to his motion to reopen.

[00:13:45] Speaker 00:
And to respond to you then, we have 25 articles and reports that are produced.

[00:13:50] Speaker 00:
And we summarize those on pages 25 and 26 of our brief. 14 of those predate the April 2022 merits hearing. They do not mention anything substantively about the Congress party. Three articles are of unknown date or source. They too mention nothing about the Congress party. Eight articles or reports post-date the mayor's hearing.

[00:14:15] Speaker 04:
And let's assume you're right about all these articles. What about the later attacks? How does this help you on the later attacks on the family?

[00:14:22] Speaker 00:
How does this help us? It certainly doesn't reflect any. And there was only the one attack, as I recall, in April. And it's really irrelevant to whether it's a material change in country conditions because he pointed to nothing.

[00:14:40] Speaker 00:
Perhaps I could refer to the car decision. We also cited to that where they mentioned this was a case where an abusive husband goes to India. He dies.

[00:14:53] Speaker 00:
Then the family blames her, threatens her if she returns. The court says no. OK, this is a change in personal circumstances of which are out of the control. But there's also accompanying record evidence about women and widows in India that changed significantly since the merits hearing. And this court then goes through that evidence that there is evidence that widows in India are now subject to more exploitation. that there are now dowry deaths where in-laws are actually killing a widow.

[00:15:26] Speaker 00:
And then the court actually does an analysis of the statistics in the record of how often there were rapes compared, for instance, at the merits hearing, three rapes in 100,000 or six in 2013.

[00:15:43] Speaker 00:
And it goes through this analysis. So, and I think the court's conclusion is a great one. And it's illustrative. They said the personal circumstance changes in India, entirely outside of control, relatedly with violence against women that has materially increased in India and Together constitute change country conditions. The personal circumstances are informed and are relevant to record evidence of widespread country condition changes.

[00:16:14] Speaker 00:
It's the latter.

[00:16:14] Speaker 04:
I guess the issue I just struggle with here is that.

[00:16:20] Speaker 04:
If the characterization of the attacks as a change in personal circumstances is not right, then really the analysis should be, you know, how severe were these new attacks? How different were these attacks from the prior attacks? What did the new attacks show about the risks to the family? Things like that. And those are some of the things you're talking about. It's just that the BIA didn't really go there, it seems.

[00:16:43] Speaker 00:
It did not go there. This court has gone there examining circumstances relevant to a petitioner in a changed country condition analysis. It did that in Reyes, Colorado. For instance, it talks about the many instances of how the family was harmed over 14 years, and then talks about the threshold that those instances put across the threshold, a new viable asylum claim. But that was done in the context of the materially changed country conditions evidence, Your Honor.

[00:17:18] Speaker 00:
So that calculus has not been done in the personal circumstances necessarily.

[00:17:24] Speaker 04:
Okay, it looks like your time has run. Let me just see if my colleagues have other questions for you.

[00:17:30] Speaker 04:
Okay, Mr. Quick, thank you very much, Mr. Quick, and Ms. Baer. Thank you. You have a few minutes for rebuttal.

[00:17:40] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor. So I think that it's pretty clear that the Board erred in their decision. I think that the government has at least addressed that, that the petitioner here, he did not do anything to induce the change in circumstances that happened that because he was a member of the Congress party that after his application was denied that his parents were harassed and harmed by government officials. I think that this is- I just wanna ask one clarifying question.

[00:18:15] Speaker 02:
When you say BJP members or BJP workers, are they part of the government?

[00:18:26] Speaker 03:
Is there a way the government harassed them? Our belief and understanding is that these are people who were sent. They are workers of the BJP party who have been authorized by the government officials and with the police to harass and harm the petitioner's family on the April 19, 2025 event. Thank you.

[00:18:56] Speaker 03:
And so we believe that this is an abuse of discretion from the board and a misapplication of the law such that it should be remanded back.

[00:19:11] Speaker 04:
Okay. It doesn't appear there are further questions for you, so thank you for your presentation. Thank both sides for the briefing and argument. This matter is submitted. And we'll ask counsel for the second case to please come on up. That is... United States v. California State Water Resources Control Board, Case 25-588. Okay.