State Protection Nexus in Private-Party Persecution Claims: Singh v. Bondi

Introduction

Singh v. Bondi (23-6074, 2d Cir. June 3, 2025) involved petitioner Sarbjit Singh’s challenge to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). A native and citizen of India, Singh alleged he was beaten twice by members of the Badal Party because of his political affiliations. He claimed that the local police refused to assist him, and he argued that the Indian government—either through unwillingness or inability—failed to protect him from private-party violence. The BIA, affirming an immigration judge’s decision, denied all relief. Singh petitioned the Second Circuit, which denied review under the substantial evidence standard for factual matters and de novo review for legal questions.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit unanimously denied Singh’s petition for review, holding that:

Singh failed to demonstrate that the Indian government was unwilling or unable to control his private persecutors—members of the Badal Party—and thus did not satisfy the statutory definition of persecution for asylum or withholding.
His two beatings, without lasting harm or systematic government acquiescence, did not rise to the level of past torture and did not establish a likelihood of future torture under the CAT.
Evidence of local police corruption and inadequate response was insufficient in light of broader country-conditions evidence showing state efforts to combat corruption and the fact that local police answer to state, not national, authorities.
Singh’s due process claim was unexhausted and thus not considered.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court relied on established Second Circuit and statutory authorities to frame its decision:

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) – Burden on asylum applicants to show persecution “on account of” a protected ground.
Scarlett v. Barr, 957 F.3d 316 (2d Cir. 2020) – Private-party persecution must be attributed to the government’s inability or unwillingness to control.
Singh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106 (2d Cir. 2021) – Members of a political party, even if allied with the ruling party, are not themselves the government.
Kyaw Zwar Tun v. U.S. INS, 445 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 2006) – Distinction between persecution and torture; torture requires more severe harm.
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3) – CAT factors: past torture, relocation, human rights violations, and country conditions.
Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2004) – CAT acquiescence requires government awareness and deliberate failure to prevent torture.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeded in three steps:

Asylum and Withholding of Removal: Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), Singh had to prove government involvement—direct or indirect—in his persecution. The court concluded that:
- Badal Party members were private actors, not government officials.
- Allegations of police inaction, though relevant, were outweighed by evidence that local police report to state governments (here controlled by the Congress Party) and that the national BJP government took steps to curb corruption.
- Singh’s own evidence did not establish an alliance between his attackers and the national ruling party sufficient to transform private violence into government persecution.
Convention Against Torture (CAT): To obtain CAT relief, Singh needed to show it was “more likely than not” he would face torture with government acquiescence. The court held:
- His two non‐medical-level beatings did not constitute “severe pain or suffering” rising to torture.
- No evidence indicated public officials were aware of or intentionally condoned these beatings—though police had failed to assist, there was no proof of a policy or pattern of acquiescence.
- Country conditions indicated some state-level protective measures and efforts against corruption.
Due Process Claim: The court noted that any standalone due process argument was not raised before the BIA and thus was unexhausted.

Impact

Although this is a summary order without precedential effect, the court’s decision reinforces key principles in asylum and CAT jurisprudence:

Private-party violence requires a clear nexus to government failure—mere police inaction is not enough when countervailing evidence of state‐level protection exists.
Political-party affiliation, even with parties allied to the government, does not convert private actors into government agents; applicants must prove an unwilling or unable government.
CAT torture requires harm more severe than common acts of persecution and specific evidence of government awareness and deliberate non‐intervention.

Future applicants will likely face heightened scrutiny of evidence showing that private persecutors act with government acquiescence or that state protection is truly lacking.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Indirect” Government Persecution: When private people harm you, you can claim persecution only if you show the government either condones it or cannot stop it.
“Substantial Evidence” Standard: A court will uphold the agency’s factual findings unless no reasonable fact‐finder could agree with the agency.
CAT “Acquiescence”: It means a government official knew about the torture and did nothing, rather than actively ordered it.
Political Party vs. Government: Just because a private party is allied with the ruling party does not make its supporters government officials.

Conclusion

Singh v. Bondi underscores the stringent burden asylum and CAT applicants bear to link private-party violence to government action or inaction. Applicants must present compelling evidence that the state is truly unable or unwilling to protect them—and that any harm meets the high threshold for torture. This decision illustrates the courts’ deference to agency fact‐finding under the substantial evidence standard and clarifies the limits of using party-aligned violence to establish persecutory or torturous government conduct.