Second Circuit Clarifies the Internal-Relocation Standard for Non-State Political Violence: Commentary on Singh v. Bondi (2025)

1. Introduction

Singh v. Bondi, No. 22-6576 (2d Cir. Mar. 19, 2025), is a summary order in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied Jagdeep Singh’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision. Singh, an Indian national and member of the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar (“Mann Party”), claimed asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) on the ground that he was twice assaulted by members of the rival Shiromani Akali Dal Badal Party (“Badal Party”).

The core issues before the Court were:

• Whether the two assaults rose to the level of “past persecution.”
• Whether Singh demonstrated a “well-founded fear” of future persecution.
• Whether, in light of the assaults being perpetrated by non-state actors, Singh bore the burden of proving that internal relocation within India would be unreasonable.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit (Judges Chin, Sullivan, and Nathan) held:

• The beatings, although reprehensible, did not constitute persecution as defined in U.S. asylum law because they caused only transient injuries, occurred outside the context of arrest or detention, and left Singh with no lasting harm.
• Because the alleged persecutors were non-state political-party members and there was no evidence of government sponsorship or acquiescence, Singh carried the burden of showing that relocation to another part of India was unreasonable; he failed to do so.
• No contrary country-conditions evidence undermined the Department of State Human Rights Report, which indicated that Mann Party members and Sikhs are not generally persecuted nationwide.
• Singh forfeited any separate CAT claim by failing to brief it.

Consequently, the petition for review was DENIED; all stays and pending motions were vacated.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

1. Singh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106 (2d Cir. 2021)
   • Clarified that attacks by political-party members do not automatically equate to government persecution.
   • Provided the framework for analyzing internal relocation when persecution is by non-state actors.
2. Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332 (2d Cir. 2006)
   • Distinguished “harassment” from “persecution,” emphasizing the severity threshold.
3. Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2006)
   • Recognized that even a “minor beating” could be persecution if it occurs in the context of arrest or detention on a protected ground. Here, the Court found that context missing.
4. Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2011)
   • Reaffirmed that persecution is an “extreme concept.”
5. Jian Qiu Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 820 (2d Cir. 2011)
   • Held that bruising without lasting effects, absent detention, generally does not constitute past persecution.
6. Huang v. I.N.S., 421 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2005)
   • Articulated the subjective/objective components of a well-founded fear.
7. Singh v. BIA, 435 F.3d 216 (2d Cir. 2006)
   • Emphasized that asylum is not granted merely to avoid domestic relocation.

3.2 Legal Reasoning of the Court

1. Severity of Harm
   The panel applied Ivanishvili and Beskovic to assess whether the two beatings constituted persecution. Key factors: (a) no arrest or detention context; (b) brief medical treatment; (c) full recovery. Under the substantial-evidence standard, the Court could not find the IJ/BIA’s conclusion “compelled to the contrary.”
2. Identification of the Persecutor
   Because members of the Badal Party are private actors, not state agents, the burden on internal relocation falls on the applicant under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i).
3. Internal Relocation
   The Court looked to:
   • Size and diversity of India (29 states; significant geographic and linguistic differences).
   • Lack of evidence that national authorities track or target Mann Party members nationwide.
   • Absence of proof that police aided the Badal Party beyond refusing to take a report.
   Singh’s speculation that his Aadhaar or other identification could be used to track him lacked evidentiary support.
4. Country-Conditions Evidence
   Tian-Yong Chen obliges the agency to weigh contrary evidence. Here, the record contained no report contradicting the State Department’s view that Sikhs and Mann Party members are not systematically persecuted.
5. Procedural Aspect—Summary Order
   Although the decision is non-precedential under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1, it nonetheless clarifies existing doctrine and is persuasive authority.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

• Raised Evidentiary Bar for Non-State Political Violence Claims
  Asylum applicants alleging persecution by political rivals must now expect rigorous scrutiny of injury severity and relocation feasibility within the home country.
• Reinforced Allocation of the Relocation Burden
  Unless clear evidence shows government involvement, the applicant—not DHS—must prove relocation is unreasonable.
• Persuasive Guidance for Immigration Judges
  Even if non-precedential, the Order synthesizes a line of Second Circuit cases, creating a concise roadmap for IJ/BIA analysis in similar fact patterns.
• Policy Considerations
  The decision may discourage strategic forum shopping by applicants who could safely reside elsewhere in their own countries, thereby preserving asylum resources for claimants facing truly nationwide threats.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Persecution

Serious harm or suffering—physical, emotional, or economic—inflicted on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or social group. Minor or isolated violence usually does not meet this threshold.

Well-Founded Fear

A 10–15% probability that the applicant will be persecuted if returned. Must be both subjectively genuine (believed by the applicant) and objectively reasonable (supported by facts).

Internal Relocation

The possibility of moving to another safe region of the same country to avoid harm. If persecutors are not state actors, the applicant must prove relocation is unsafe or unreasonable.

Substantial-Evidence Standard

An appellate court must uphold agency fact-finding unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach the opposite conclusion.

Summary Order (2d Cir.)

A non-precedential decision resolving the appeal without full published opinion; can be cited after 2007 but carries only persuasive weight.

5. Conclusion

Singh v. Bondi fortifies the Second Circuit’s jurisprudence on the distinction between harassment and persecution, the burden-shifting framework for internal relocation, and the treatment of non-state political violence. While Singh’s experience was undoubtedly harrowing, the Court underscored that U.S. asylum protection is reserved for individuals facing severe, nationwide, or government-tolerated harm. The ruling signals to practitioners that future asylum claims premised on localized, non-state attacks must be buttressed by evidence of either governmental complicity or the impossibility of safe domestic relocation. Even as a summary order, the decision offers clear analytical guidance that is likely to resonate in IJ and BIA deliberations—and to influence litigants evaluating the viability of similar petitions.