Case Summary
**Case Summary: Jaswinder Singh v. Eric H. Holder Jr.**
**Docket Number:** 7837867
**Court:** United States Court of Appeals
**Date:** [Insert date of decision if available]
**Background:**
Jaswinder Singh, the petitioner, appealed against Eric H. Holder Jr., the then-Attorney General of the United States. The case centers around immigration and the denial of Singh's application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh, a native of India, claimed he faced persecution due to his Sikh faith and political opinions.
**Issues:**
1. Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) erred in denying Singh's application for CAT relief.
2. Whether the evidence presented by Singh was sufficient to establish a likelihood of torture if he were to be deported to India.
**Facts:**
- Jaswinder Singh entered the United States as an undocumented immigrant and was later detained by immigration authorities.
- He claimed that if returned to India, he would face torture or inhumane treatment from the Indian government due to his political activities and religious identity.
- The immigration judge concluded that Singh had not demonstrated a "more likely than not" chance of being tortured upon return to India.
**Rulings:**
The Court affirmed the BIA's ruling, finding that the evidence presented by Singh regarding the risk of torture did not meet the required standard for CAT relief. The court emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence showing that Singh would probably be tortured by state actors or with their consent or acquiescence upon his return to India.
**Conclusion:**
Jaswinder Singh's appeal was denied, upholding the previous decisions made by the immigration judge and BIA. The case reaffirmed the stringent criteria needed for CAT relief and highlighted the burden on the applicant to provide substantial evidence of the likelihood of torture in their home country.
**Significance:**
This case serves as a precedent for other similar immigration cases where applicants seek protection from deportation based on claims of potential torture. The ruling illustrates the challenges faced by individuals claiming asylum or seeking relief from deportation under international human rights standards.