UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JASWINDER SINGH, No. 23-95 Agency No. Petitioner, A216-276-233 v. OPINION MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted December 5, 2023 Seattle, Washington

Filed October 4, 2024 Before: N. Randy Smith, Gabriel P. Sanchez, and Salvador Mendoza, Jr., Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Sanchez; Dissent by N. Randy Smith 2 SINGH V. GARLAND

SUMMARY *

Immigration

The panel granted Jaswinder Singh’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the denial of his application for asylum, holding that the Board erred in its adverse credibility determination and its internal relocation analysis. The panel held that in concluding that Singh was not credible the agency misapplied Matter of R-K-K-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 658 (BIA 2015), which permits consideration of strikingly similar affidavits submitted by asylum applicants in unrelated proceedings as a basis for an adverse credibility determination. First, the agency erred by relying solely on non-unique factual similarities between Singh and other unknown declarants from India, without considering appropriate factors such as the use of similar words or phrases, distinct language and grammar, syntax, and narrative structure, or other cues that would suggest the affidavit was plagiarized. Additionally, there were serious concerns about the government’s unreliable chart and its methodology in selecting declarations for comparison. Finally, the government’s submission of declarations with redacted identifying information about the declarants, including their names and the location and dates of their attacks, raised due process concerns because Singh had no way to determine who the declarants were or explain

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. SINGH V. GARLAND 3

why their factual allegations may have been similar to his own. Addressing the agency’s internal relocation analysis, the panel held that the agency erred by failing to hold the government to its burden of proving that Singh could safely engage in Mann Party activities in areas outside of Punjab. The agency also relied on improper speculation in concluding that violence against Mann Party members, particularly outside of Punjab, was rare. Finally, by focusing solely on whether officials within Punjab would follow Singh to a new region, the agency failed to consider whether Singh may face persecution outside Punjab from local authorities, or other actors, based on his future political activities. The panel remanded for the BIA to conduct a renewed credibility determination under Matter of R-K-K-, and to conduct a sufficiently individualized analysis of whether Singh could safety and reasonably relocate outside of Punjab if he continues to engage in Mann Party activities. Dissenting, Judge N.R. Smith wrote that because Singh did not meaningfully challenge any of the IJ’s internal relocation findings in his opening brief, those issues should be deemed forfeited and his petition should fail on that basis alone. Moreover, in addressing the agency’s internal relocation analysis, the majority raised new arguments Singh never made and then found contrary evidence in the record to refute the IJ’s findings, while ignoring the IJ’s findings of fact, and more importantly, the appropriate substantial evidence standard of review.