Singh V. Garland

Repeated acts of physical violence, accompanied with death threats, rise to the level of “serious harm” needed to show “past persecution” in petitions for asylum. See Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 634 (9th Cir. 2022).

Over a period of two years, Petitioner was beaten multiple times and faced death threats in India because of his association with the Mann Party, a minority political group. Petitioner’s claims were disregarded by local police, and after failed attempts to hide from the attackers across the country, fled to the U.S. seeking asylum. The Immigration Judge, and subsequent appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), denied the application for asylum, withholding of removal, and application for CAT protection, because he did not establish “serious harm” rising to the level of “past persecution.” On appeal, the Panel disagreed with BIA’s determination that “serious harm” requires “serious injuries.” Repeated acts of physical violence, accompanied with death threats, rise to the level of “serious harm” needed to show “past persecution.” See Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 634 (9th Cir. 2022). Despite Petitioner’s non-life-threatening injuries, several factors amounted to “substantial evidence” of “serious harm.” Petition granted in part, denied in part, and remanded for further proceedings.