To qualify for asylum as a refugee, an individual must show either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. (
8 CFR 1208.13). In
Singh v. Barr, (9th Cir., March 25, 2019), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held in a 2-1 decision that a citizen of India had shown neither. Amaneep Singh, a Sikh, approached members of the Dera Sacha Sauda at one of their recruitment meetings to stop them from criticizing Sikhism. He was chased out of the event. Two months later Dera Sacha Sauda members encountered Singh alone and beat him. When Singh approached police, they demanded a 25,000 rupee bribe to help him. the majority concluded:
Because Singh’s evidence showed only that the police demanded a bribe on one occasion, the evidence does not compel a finding that the government was unable or unwilling to control the people who attacked him, and therefore does not compel a finding of past persecution....
Singh’s attackers were part of Dera Sacha Sauda, a small religious minority active in only some regions of India. There is no reason to think that Singh is at future risk from a group with such limited influence because he is a Sikh.
Judge Watford dissented saying in part:
Members of another religious faith told Singh to abandon his religion and join their own. When he refused to disavow his faith, they beat him until he was unconscious, hospitalizing him for two weeks. When he went to the police for help, they refused to help him unless he paid a bribe, which was more than he could afford to pay. The majority errs by concluding that these facts do not establish past persecution.
San Francisco Chronicle reports on the decision.
