Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NACHHATTAR SINGH; SANDEEP No. 25-3300 KAUR; G.K.; G.K., Agency Nos. 246-000-957, Petitioners, 246-000-958, 246-000-959, 246-000-960 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCE, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of The Board of Immigration Appeals, Submitted October 23, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: BUMATAY, VANDYKE, and MENDOZA, JR., Circuit Judges. Petitioners Nachhattar Singh, his wife, Sandeep Kaur, and their two minor children, (collectively, “Petitioners”) petition for review of the denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Our review is limited to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). decision except to the extent that the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) opinion was expressly adopted by the BIA. Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021). We review factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition.1 1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA concluded that Petitioners failed to establish past persecution because the three assaults lead petitioner Singh suffered, although reprehensible, only resulted in minor injuries, and the two corresponding death threats were not “so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted); see also Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1064 (9th Cir. 2021). The record evidence is not such that “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 607 U.S. 537, 544 (2026) (quoting Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573, 584 (2020)). The agency also reasonably found that Petitioners can reasonably and safely relocate to Punjab. See Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 661 (9th Cir. 2019) (the agency “must conduct a reasoned analysis with respect to a petitioner’s 1 Petitioners waived any challenge to the BIA’s determination that they waived the IJ’s denial of their Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) claim because Petitioners did not contest the BIA’s determination in their opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, this issue is not properly before the Court and will not be addressed. 2 25-3300 individualized situation to determine” whether safe internal relocation is reasonable). The agency concluded it would be reasonable for Singh to relocate to Punjab, as Singh is Sikh (a majority group in Punjab), fluent in Punjabi, has family members who live in that state, and can continue to work for his farmer’s union, which is based in Punjab. The agency analyzed Petitioners’ individual circumstances and concluded relocation to Punjab would be safe and reasonable, as all the harm Singh previously suffered happened within the state of Haryana, and there was no evidence suggesting Singh’s assailants would pursue him throughout India. The agency further noted that the Bharatiya Janata Party, which Singh’s primary assailant is affiliated with, is not in power in Punjab. The agency’s relocation determination defeats Petitioners’ claim of well-founded fear of future persecution, and thus their claims for asylum and withholding of removal fail. See Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1029. 2. To the extent Petitioners raise a due process claim, that contention is without merit. A petitioner “bears the burden of proving the alleged violation prejudiced his or her interests.” Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011). Prejudice exists only where the violation may have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See Flores-Rodriguez v. Garland, 8 F.4th 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2021). 3 25-3300 Here, Petitioners cannot establish that any prejudice resulted from the IJ’s credibility findings. Gutierrez, 662 F.3d at 1091. The agency didn’t rely on the credibility findings to deny Petitioners relief. The BIA expressly declined to reach the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, instead affirming the IJ’s alternative merits ruling. Petitioners’ remaining arguments merely disagree with the agency’s conclusions, which cannot sustain a due process claim. See Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1212–13 (9th Cir. 2022). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.2 2 The motion to stay removal (Dkt. 3) is denied. 4 25-3300