Legal Case Summary

Bagga Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch


Date Argued: Thu Oct 22 2015
Case Number: M2015-00618-CCA-R3-PC
Docket Number: 3006433
Judges:Molloy, Reinhardt, Hawkins
Duration: 20 minutes
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case Summary

**Case Summary: Bagga Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch** **Docket Number:** 3006433 **Court:** United States Court of Appeals **Date:** [Specific date if available] **Background:** Bagga Singh, the petitioner, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) regarding his immigration status and appeal for relief from removal. Singh, a native of India, had initially applied for asylum and other forms of relief based on claims of persecution due to his political beliefs and past experiences in India. **Issues:** The central issues in the case were whether Singh provided sufficient evidence to support his claims for asylum and fear of persecution, and whether the BIA erred in its determination that he did not qualify for such relief. Additionally, the case examined the standards of proof required for establishing eligibility for asylum and the implications of Singh’s credibility and past actions. **Arguments:** - **Petitioner (Bagga Singh):** Argued that he faced significant threats to his life and safety due to his political activism and prior persecution in India. He contended that the BIA had not adequately considered the evidence presented, which he believed clearly demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution. - **Respondent (Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General):** The government maintained that Singh had not met the burden of proof necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. It contended that his testimonies lacked credibility and that the evidence did not adequately support his claims of potential harm if returned to India. **Decision:** The court ultimately ruled on whether the BIA's decision should be upheld or overturned, taking into consideration the evidential support for Singh’s claims and the procedural correctness of the BIA’s review. The ruling likely addressed the standards of evidence required for asylum claims and the evaluation of credibility by the immigration authorities. **Conclusion:** The court's decision in Bagga Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch established important precedents regarding the standards for asylum applications, the evaluation of credibility in immigration cases, and the treatment of evidence in claims of persecution. The case emphasized the judicial oversight necessary to ensure that individuals seeking refuge from persecution are afforded a fair assessment of their claims. **Note:** Specific legal principles, citations, and outcomes of the case may require further detail based on the actual court opinion and decision rendered.

Bagga Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch


Oral Audio Transcript(Beta version)

Good morning, Your Honours. I represent the petitioner in this case and who's seeking review of the board's final order for removal in which the board affirmed the immigration judge's determination that he did not qualify for asylum with holding of removal and relief under the convention against torture. In short, the board upheld the immigration judge's adverse credibility determination and also found that even if the petitioner was credible, he still did not experience persecution in his native country of India and there was no well-founded fear of future persecution. The immigration judge's adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence and immigration judge's post-pursucusion analysis is also flawed. As to credibility, the immigration judge was affirmed by the board on two grounds. The first round related to the treatment the petitioner's father received in India after he was arrested, the petitioner had written in his declaration that his father was tortured, whereas in court he testified that he was beaten but was not physically harmed. The immigration judge found that to be an inconsistency that went to the heart of the claim. Well, at one point in his testimony, he didn't say he was beaten. At another point, I think he did a fire call correctly

. Do you disagree with that, that the first time, I think I'm cross, he said that he was beaten but not injured and direct, as they recall, he said that he was not physically harmed. That's true, Your Honor. That's correct. However, not being that he was not physically harmed, he explained on cross examination and even the board acknowledged in its order that he did explain that he was physically harmed but he meant by physical harm was that there were no marks on his body. That's the issue, Your Honor. The fact that whether the father was tortured or he was beaten, the word torture is a very broad concept. I mean, it can be interpreted as physical, as well as non-physical harm. A person can be tortured and not have any physical harm

. In this case, if you look at the record, the judge interpreted the term torture as physical harm. What's assumed that we find the adverse credibility determination to the less than well found. So move on from that. What's your client's persecution? Well, Your Honor. I think in mind that this was what, 21 years ago? Yes. Well, Your Honor. I'm waiting for you to start a sentence with. My client's persecution was

. Well, yes. Lead the sentence. Your Honor, he was persecuted on account of his political opinion. How was he persecuted? Well, first of all, if you look at the totality of his experience, he was arrested once. He was beaten. He was warned that if he continued to take part in those activities that his life would not be spared. This was during the time of an insurgency where young men, such as my client, were treated and sometimes killed and fabricated in counters by the security forces. And three years later, when he did take part in a political activity, his house was raided

. He was forced to flee the country. Now, while it's true that he was not physically harmed during the Second Encounter, but that's the issue, the concept of persecution as defined by this court as well as all the courts, is much broader than physical harm. Now if a person, for example, people who fled, let's see Nazi Germany before they were arrested and executed by the Nazis, for example, they are just as entitled to asylum as people who were caught and then escaped perhaps. So the concept of this concept that this court has adopted is much broader than that. And we believe that immigration judge did not properly apply this court's standard, or the two cases cited by the immigration judge in this case. Both those cases are not applicable here. In those cases, they were briefed attentions and then the petitioners in those cases left the country under no threat from the government or from someone else. So this case is very distinguishable from those cases

. Now I like to come back to the point that, now this was 21 years ago. Now the reason why, if the immigration judge erred on the post-pursitution analysis, this case should go back is because under federal regulation, an alien who suffered post-pursitution is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of future persecution, which the government can rebut under the preponderance of evidence tests by showing that there has been a change in country conditions or the petitioner could relocate reasonably under all those factors. And even if the government is able to do that, a person who suffered post-harm or persecution is entitled to something called a humanitarian asylum, based on other serious harm. So the fact that the petitioner has lived here for 21 years, he has a family here, he may still have the other serious harm, which of course this court cannot rule on because can't engage in fact finding. So what it comes down to is this, if the petitioner was credible or immigration judge as post-pursitution analysis was also incorrect, the case has to be remanded because whether he has a well-founded future, a persecution in India depends on those factors. And we believe that's why this petition for a view should be granted, because this court cannot decide well-founded fear without those errors being committed by the agency. If there's no other questions, I think I'll just save my time for a bottle. Thank you

. May it please the court, Rosanne Perry, on behalf of the Attorney General. The issue before the court is whether substantial evidence supports the agency's determinations that one, petition is not credible, two, petitioner failed to establish past persecution and three, petitioner failed to establish that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution. This is pre-real ideas, isn't it? Yes, it is. So while minor inconsistencies cannot form the basis for adverse credibility, the here, in this case, there are major inconsistencies that go to the heart of the claim. With regard to the father's main 19th- Consistencies relate to the father, correct? Yes. And to the inconsistencies dealing with Hawara, the guy who escaped and then was used as a pretext to arrest, or re-arrest seeks, according to the petitioner. With regard to the father's arrest in 1993, as petitioner's counsel stated, in declaration, he said he was tortured. The father was tortured

. But on direct, he said he was not physically harmed at all. On cross examination, he said he was physically harmed and then, but he didn't suffer any injuries. That's a clear, those are clear inconsistencies, in this case, to go from torture to being physically not physically harmed. And I think that he stated it was in 2006 that he wasn't physically harmed and then in May of 2010. I believe that he was physically harmed but not beaten. What are boarding in torture, isn't it? I'm not asking you to state that for the position of the Department of Justice. It is possible to torture someone without them being physically harmed, isn't it? Correct. Mental harm can be torture, but he hasn't stated that he was- That probation, that kind of thing, yeah

. I'm sorry. Sleep deprivation. It could be possibly torture, but he hasn't indicated or said anything about that in this case. Let's push the father's situation aside and focus on the petitioner's claims of persecution. Did the IJ find any adverse credibility findings with regard to those descriptions? He didn't rely on those descriptions or she didn't rely on those instances where in 1989, he was hurt. We have the case now. The petitioner's testimony with regard to his own treatment stands as credible. Well, yes, it would stand as credible

. Unless you can transfer adverse credibility from one set of facts to another. There is some evidence that- The information. There is some evidence that, or the IJ did discuss his previous asylum declaration where he stated that he wasn't credible with regard to, but the IJ didn't rely on it in this decision. No. What is the record tell us with regard to the treatment of Sikhs today? According to the record, Sikhs are not- Well, first Sikhs are the majority in Punjab, where the petitioners from. While they're in minority in India, they are majority in Punjab. And- The president of India is a Sikh, isn't he? The prime minister- The prime minister is a Sikh, yes. And I believe the chief minister on Punjab is also a Sikh

. They can- The records as they can internally relocate without issue. What's the latest country report that's part of the record? I believe it's 2000. 2009 Human Rights Report that doesn't discuss the treatment of Sikhs, that they would be harmed- Or that they're being harmed right now. There is a response to info requests that the USCIS provided. And it does say that there have been significant improvements in human rights for Sikhs in Punjab. If- If- If the 2014 or 2015 country report for part of the record would it show a different situation with regard to mistreatment of Sikhs? I'm not sure. Your Honor, that's not part of the record and what we have to consider here is the record. We can't go outside of the record. The country report that is part of the record indicates that Sikhs are being mistreated. No. The country report- They're not being mistreated. According to- I do not hear you correctly. Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you. So, um, yes, that was a March 2009, um, response to information request

. The country report that is part of the record indicates that Sikhs are being mistreated. No. The country report- They're not being mistreated. According to- I do not hear you correctly. Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you. So, um, yes, that was a March 2009, um, response to information request. And then the 2008 international or the human- Or 2009 human rights report does not mention any mistreatment of Sikhs. Um, do you think that the inconsistencies that the immigration judge found might be explained by the fact that he first filed a petition in 1993. He filed another one in 2002. Nothing was done on the first one. Then he has direct examination in 2006 and cross-examination in 2010. I mean, that seems- It would that be a reason to say, well, maybe just the passage of time means he doesn't remember things quite as well as if he had been given the hearing immediately? I mean, it's torture. You would remember- You would think he would remember that his father was tortured versus no physical harm Now he was physically harmed, but he didn't suffer any injuries. It's not something that, um, I believe that you would forget like in the passage over the passage of time

. And then the 2008 international or the human- Or 2009 human rights report does not mention any mistreatment of Sikhs. Um, do you think that the inconsistencies that the immigration judge found might be explained by the fact that he first filed a petition in 1993. He filed another one in 2002. Nothing was done on the first one. Then he has direct examination in 2006 and cross-examination in 2010. I mean, that seems- It would that be a reason to say, well, maybe just the passage of time means he doesn't remember things quite as well as if he had been given the hearing immediately? I mean, it's torture. You would remember- You would think he would remember that his father was tortured versus no physical harm Now he was physically harmed, but he didn't suffer any injuries. It's not something that, um, I believe that you would forget like in the passage over the passage of time. That's- Those are drastic inconsistencies. He wasn't like saying, oh, he was tortured first, but then and direct. He was physically harmed, but you know, the severity of his injuries weren't his injuries weren't severe. He went from- His dad was tortured to- He was not physically harmed to- He was physically harmed, but he didn't suffer injuries. Um, moving on To the past persecution to further to discuss his past persecution claim. He was not significantly harmed in 1989. He was- He said he was slapped a few times and his arm was twisted for six or seven minutes, and then he said his dad was abused for another eight minutes. When you compare it to, uh, Prasad and Gu, his case, they're analogous as the board said

. That's- Those are drastic inconsistencies. He wasn't like saying, oh, he was tortured first, but then and direct. He was physically harmed, but you know, the severity of his injuries weren't his injuries weren't severe. He went from- His dad was tortured to- He was not physically harmed to- He was physically harmed, but he didn't suffer injuries. Um, moving on To the past persecution to further to discuss his past persecution claim. He was not significantly harmed in 1989. He was- He said he was slapped a few times and his arm was twisted for six or seven minutes, and then he said his dad was abused for another eight minutes. When you compare it to, uh, Prasad and Gu, his case, they're analogous as the board said. Um, In those cases, I believe that they sub- It was probably more egregious in those cases the treatment that they suffered. Um, I believe they were detained for longer and they were physically abused even more. Um, And he didn't require any medical treatment and he lived for- In India for another four years without harm before he- He supposedly, um, Participated in this rally in 1993 and he stated- A petitioner's council stated that his house was rated in 1993. But I don't even believe that the petitioner was there and it- It looks from like the record that it was his father was- That was the main target and not the petitioner himself. Um, With regard to the rebuttable presumption that he has a well-founded fear, The ij, which he didn't- he didn't address that in his brief. He waived that in his brief, but in any case, um, The ij found that there was no- He could internally relocate in Punjab or in India without trouble. And with regard to the humanitarian asylum claim, He didn't raise that before the board or before the agency. So that's not before the court

. Um, In those cases, I believe that they sub- It was probably more egregious in those cases the treatment that they suffered. Um, I believe they were detained for longer and they were physically abused even more. Um, And he didn't require any medical treatment and he lived for- In India for another four years without harm before he- He supposedly, um, Participated in this rally in 1993 and he stated- A petitioner's council stated that his house was rated in 1993. But I don't even believe that the petitioner was there and it- It looks from like the record that it was his father was- That was the main target and not the petitioner himself. Um, With regard to the rebuttable presumption that he has a well-founded fear, The ij, which he didn't- he didn't address that in his brief. He waived that in his brief, but in any case, um, The ij found that there was no- He could internally relocate in Punjab or in India without trouble. And with regard to the humanitarian asylum claim, He didn't raise that before the board or before the agency. So that's not before the court. I see my time's almost up if there are no further questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And conclusion, the government, um, would ask that the court deny the petition for you. Thank you, Your Honours. Um, Your Honour, I'd just like to point out that this case is not about The fear of harm that a member of the Sikh community in India fears. This is not a Sikh asylum claim

. I see my time's almost up if there are no further questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And conclusion, the government, um, would ask that the court deny the petition for you. Thank you, Your Honours. Um, Your Honour, I'd just like to point out that this case is not about The fear of harm that a member of the Sikh community in India fears. This is not a Sikh asylum claim. He's not claiming harm that he's a Sikh. He's claiming asylum. And he fears future persecution on account of the fact that he- That the- that line enforcement and the police thinks he's emilient Who may have been taking part in military training in Pakistan. So this case is not about the treatment of Sikhs and the prime minister of India as a Sikh and- or that there are, you know, that the main term insurgency or the main insurgency in India has, you know, has been done- has- has finished or ended. And secondly, Your Honour, um, the concept of persecution is a very fluid concept. It's not like a checklist that, oh, have to be physically harmed so many times. You have to be kicked so many times. You have to be tortured like this

. He's not claiming harm that he's a Sikh. He's claiming asylum. And he fears future persecution on account of the fact that he- That the- that line enforcement and the police thinks he's emilient Who may have been taking part in military training in Pakistan. So this case is not about the treatment of Sikhs and the prime minister of India as a Sikh and- or that there are, you know, that the main term insurgency or the main insurgency in India has, you know, has been done- has- has finished or ended. And secondly, Your Honour, um, the concept of persecution is a very fluid concept. It's not like a checklist that, oh, have to be physically harmed so many times. You have to be kicked so many times. You have to be tortured like this. You have to look at the totality of the circumstances. You have to look at under what- what- uh, context this thing happened. I think that fear of harm itself can account to persecution, especially in- during a civil war. The State Department reports from 1995 onwards. And even now- even the new reports say that the Indian government engaged in- engages in extrajudicial killings of militants, suspected militants, all over the country. So this issue is not about his fear of persecution because he's a Sikh. This issue is more about his fear of persecution on account of his imputed political opinion with Sikh militants. And the fact that the father is not harmed in India has no relevance to this

. You have to look at the totality of the circumstances. You have to look at under what- what- uh, context this thing happened. I think that fear of harm itself can account to persecution, especially in- during a civil war. The State Department reports from 1995 onwards. And even now- even the new reports say that the Indian government engaged in- engages in extrajudicial killings of militants, suspected militants, all over the country. So this issue is not about his fear of persecution because he's a Sikh. This issue is more about his fear of persecution on account of his imputed political opinion with Sikh militants. And the fact that the father is not harmed in India has no relevance to this. It has some relevance but not a whole lot. If anything, the- the police has more to suspect that a young man who lived at home is no longer living here. And the father- they know what the father is doing, but they don't know what he's doing. So based on the totality of all the facts here, I believe that this case should be remanded because immigration judge Erard on the post-persicution claim in this court has limited fact-finding authority. It can't even take judicial notice in most cases. So on account- if the immigration judge Erard on that part, post-persicution and credibility is not at stake, then the case should be remanded to the board for additional fact-finding. So they can apply the proper standard and then determine whether the government, if they do find post-harm post-persicution, whether the government can rebut the presumption of future persecution. Thank you

. It has some relevance but not a whole lot. If anything, the- the police has more to suspect that a young man who lived at home is no longer living here. And the father- they know what the father is doing, but they don't know what he's doing. So based on the totality of all the facts here, I believe that this case should be remanded because immigration judge Erard on the post-persicution claim in this court has limited fact-finding authority. It can't even take judicial notice in most cases. So on account- if the immigration judge Erard on that part, post-persicution and credibility is not at stake, then the case should be remanded to the board for additional fact-finding. So they can apply the proper standard and then determine whether the government, if they do find post-harm post-persicution, whether the government can rebut the presumption of future persecution. Thank you. If there's no other questions, I think. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, this can't be. We'll be submitted.

Good morning, Your Honours. I represent the petitioner in this case and who's seeking review of the board's final order for removal in which the board affirmed the immigration judge's determination that he did not qualify for asylum with holding of removal and relief under the convention against torture. In short, the board upheld the immigration judge's adverse credibility determination and also found that even if the petitioner was credible, he still did not experience persecution in his native country of India and there was no well-founded fear of future persecution. The immigration judge's adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence and immigration judge's post-pursucusion analysis is also flawed. As to credibility, the immigration judge was affirmed by the board on two grounds. The first round related to the treatment the petitioner's father received in India after he was arrested, the petitioner had written in his declaration that his father was tortured, whereas in court he testified that he was beaten but was not physically harmed. The immigration judge found that to be an inconsistency that went to the heart of the claim. Well, at one point in his testimony, he didn't say he was beaten. At another point, I think he did a fire call correctly. Do you disagree with that, that the first time, I think I'm cross, he said that he was beaten but not injured and direct, as they recall, he said that he was not physically harmed. That's true, Your Honor. That's correct. However, not being that he was not physically harmed, he explained on cross examination and even the board acknowledged in its order that he did explain that he was physically harmed but he meant by physical harm was that there were no marks on his body. That's the issue, Your Honor. The fact that whether the father was tortured or he was beaten, the word torture is a very broad concept. I mean, it can be interpreted as physical, as well as non-physical harm. A person can be tortured and not have any physical harm. In this case, if you look at the record, the judge interpreted the term torture as physical harm. What's assumed that we find the adverse credibility determination to the less than well found. So move on from that. What's your client's persecution? Well, Your Honor. I think in mind that this was what, 21 years ago? Yes. Well, Your Honor. I'm waiting for you to start a sentence with. My client's persecution was. Well, yes. Lead the sentence. Your Honor, he was persecuted on account of his political opinion. How was he persecuted? Well, first of all, if you look at the totality of his experience, he was arrested once. He was beaten. He was warned that if he continued to take part in those activities that his life would not be spared. This was during the time of an insurgency where young men, such as my client, were treated and sometimes killed and fabricated in counters by the security forces. And three years later, when he did take part in a political activity, his house was raided. He was forced to flee the country. Now, while it's true that he was not physically harmed during the Second Encounter, but that's the issue, the concept of persecution as defined by this court as well as all the courts, is much broader than physical harm. Now if a person, for example, people who fled, let's see Nazi Germany before they were arrested and executed by the Nazis, for example, they are just as entitled to asylum as people who were caught and then escaped perhaps. So the concept of this concept that this court has adopted is much broader than that. And we believe that immigration judge did not properly apply this court's standard, or the two cases cited by the immigration judge in this case. Both those cases are not applicable here. In those cases, they were briefed attentions and then the petitioners in those cases left the country under no threat from the government or from someone else. So this case is very distinguishable from those cases. Now I like to come back to the point that, now this was 21 years ago. Now the reason why, if the immigration judge erred on the post-pursitution analysis, this case should go back is because under federal regulation, an alien who suffered post-pursitution is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of future persecution, which the government can rebut under the preponderance of evidence tests by showing that there has been a change in country conditions or the petitioner could relocate reasonably under all those factors. And even if the government is able to do that, a person who suffered post-harm or persecution is entitled to something called a humanitarian asylum, based on other serious harm. So the fact that the petitioner has lived here for 21 years, he has a family here, he may still have the other serious harm, which of course this court cannot rule on because can't engage in fact finding. So what it comes down to is this, if the petitioner was credible or immigration judge as post-pursitution analysis was also incorrect, the case has to be remanded because whether he has a well-founded future, a persecution in India depends on those factors. And we believe that's why this petition for a view should be granted, because this court cannot decide well-founded fear without those errors being committed by the agency. If there's no other questions, I think I'll just save my time for a bottle. Thank you. May it please the court, Rosanne Perry, on behalf of the Attorney General. The issue before the court is whether substantial evidence supports the agency's determinations that one, petition is not credible, two, petitioner failed to establish past persecution and three, petitioner failed to establish that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution. This is pre-real ideas, isn't it? Yes, it is. So while minor inconsistencies cannot form the basis for adverse credibility, the here, in this case, there are major inconsistencies that go to the heart of the claim. With regard to the father's main 19th- Consistencies relate to the father, correct? Yes. And to the inconsistencies dealing with Hawara, the guy who escaped and then was used as a pretext to arrest, or re-arrest seeks, according to the petitioner. With regard to the father's arrest in 1993, as petitioner's counsel stated, in declaration, he said he was tortured. The father was tortured. But on direct, he said he was not physically harmed at all. On cross examination, he said he was physically harmed and then, but he didn't suffer any injuries. That's a clear, those are clear inconsistencies, in this case, to go from torture to being physically not physically harmed. And I think that he stated it was in 2006 that he wasn't physically harmed and then in May of 2010. I believe that he was physically harmed but not beaten. What are boarding in torture, isn't it? I'm not asking you to state that for the position of the Department of Justice. It is possible to torture someone without them being physically harmed, isn't it? Correct. Mental harm can be torture, but he hasn't stated that he was- That probation, that kind of thing, yeah. I'm sorry. Sleep deprivation. It could be possibly torture, but he hasn't indicated or said anything about that in this case. Let's push the father's situation aside and focus on the petitioner's claims of persecution. Did the IJ find any adverse credibility findings with regard to those descriptions? He didn't rely on those descriptions or she didn't rely on those instances where in 1989, he was hurt. We have the case now. The petitioner's testimony with regard to his own treatment stands as credible. Well, yes, it would stand as credible. Unless you can transfer adverse credibility from one set of facts to another. There is some evidence that- The information. There is some evidence that, or the IJ did discuss his previous asylum declaration where he stated that he wasn't credible with regard to, but the IJ didn't rely on it in this decision. No. What is the record tell us with regard to the treatment of Sikhs today? According to the record, Sikhs are not- Well, first Sikhs are the majority in Punjab, where the petitioners from. While they're in minority in India, they are majority in Punjab. And- The president of India is a Sikh, isn't he? The prime minister- The prime minister is a Sikh, yes. And I believe the chief minister on Punjab is also a Sikh. They can- The records as they can internally relocate without issue. What's the latest country report that's part of the record? I believe it's 2000. 2009 Human Rights Report that doesn't discuss the treatment of Sikhs, that they would be harmed- Or that they're being harmed right now. There is a response to info requests that the USCIS provided. And it does say that there have been significant improvements in human rights for Sikhs in Punjab. If- If- If the 2014 or 2015 country report for part of the record would it show a different situation with regard to mistreatment of Sikhs? I'm not sure. Your Honor, that's not part of the record and what we have to consider here is the record. We can't go outside of the record. The country report that is part of the record indicates that Sikhs are being mistreated. No. The country report- They're not being mistreated. According to- I do not hear you correctly. Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you. So, um, yes, that was a March 2009, um, response to information request. And then the 2008 international or the human- Or 2009 human rights report does not mention any mistreatment of Sikhs. Um, do you think that the inconsistencies that the immigration judge found might be explained by the fact that he first filed a petition in 1993. He filed another one in 2002. Nothing was done on the first one. Then he has direct examination in 2006 and cross-examination in 2010. I mean, that seems- It would that be a reason to say, well, maybe just the passage of time means he doesn't remember things quite as well as if he had been given the hearing immediately? I mean, it's torture. You would remember- You would think he would remember that his father was tortured versus no physical harm Now he was physically harmed, but he didn't suffer any injuries. It's not something that, um, I believe that you would forget like in the passage over the passage of time. That's- Those are drastic inconsistencies. He wasn't like saying, oh, he was tortured first, but then and direct. He was physically harmed, but you know, the severity of his injuries weren't his injuries weren't severe. He went from- His dad was tortured to- He was not physically harmed to- He was physically harmed, but he didn't suffer injuries. Um, moving on To the past persecution to further to discuss his past persecution claim. He was not significantly harmed in 1989. He was- He said he was slapped a few times and his arm was twisted for six or seven minutes, and then he said his dad was abused for another eight minutes. When you compare it to, uh, Prasad and Gu, his case, they're analogous as the board said. Um, In those cases, I believe that they sub- It was probably more egregious in those cases the treatment that they suffered. Um, I believe they were detained for longer and they were physically abused even more. Um, And he didn't require any medical treatment and he lived for- In India for another four years without harm before he- He supposedly, um, Participated in this rally in 1993 and he stated- A petitioner's council stated that his house was rated in 1993. But I don't even believe that the petitioner was there and it- It looks from like the record that it was his father was- That was the main target and not the petitioner himself. Um, With regard to the rebuttable presumption that he has a well-founded fear, The ij, which he didn't- he didn't address that in his brief. He waived that in his brief, but in any case, um, The ij found that there was no- He could internally relocate in Punjab or in India without trouble. And with regard to the humanitarian asylum claim, He didn't raise that before the board or before the agency. So that's not before the court. I see my time's almost up if there are no further questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And conclusion, the government, um, would ask that the court deny the petition for you. Thank you, Your Honours. Um, Your Honour, I'd just like to point out that this case is not about The fear of harm that a member of the Sikh community in India fears. This is not a Sikh asylum claim. He's not claiming harm that he's a Sikh. He's claiming asylum. And he fears future persecution on account of the fact that he- That the- that line enforcement and the police thinks he's emilient Who may have been taking part in military training in Pakistan. So this case is not about the treatment of Sikhs and the prime minister of India as a Sikh and- or that there are, you know, that the main term insurgency or the main insurgency in India has, you know, has been done- has- has finished or ended. And secondly, Your Honour, um, the concept of persecution is a very fluid concept. It's not like a checklist that, oh, have to be physically harmed so many times. You have to be kicked so many times. You have to be tortured like this. You have to look at the totality of the circumstances. You have to look at under what- what- uh, context this thing happened. I think that fear of harm itself can account to persecution, especially in- during a civil war. The State Department reports from 1995 onwards. And even now- even the new reports say that the Indian government engaged in- engages in extrajudicial killings of militants, suspected militants, all over the country. So this issue is not about his fear of persecution because he's a Sikh. This issue is more about his fear of persecution on account of his imputed political opinion with Sikh militants. And the fact that the father is not harmed in India has no relevance to this. It has some relevance but not a whole lot. If anything, the- the police has more to suspect that a young man who lived at home is no longer living here. And the father- they know what the father is doing, but they don't know what he's doing. So based on the totality of all the facts here, I believe that this case should be remanded because immigration judge Erard on the post-persicution claim in this court has limited fact-finding authority. It can't even take judicial notice in most cases. So on account- if the immigration judge Erard on that part, post-persicution and credibility is not at stake, then the case should be remanded to the board for additional fact-finding. So they can apply the proper standard and then determine whether the government, if they do find post-harm post-persicution, whether the government can rebut the presumption of future persecution. Thank you. If there's no other questions, I think. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, this can't be. We'll be submitted