Singh v. Garland

Under Flores Molina, an asylum applicant has faced past persecution when they have repeatedly fled their homes after receiving “immediate threat[s] of severe physical violence or death.” Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 634 (9th Cir. 2022).

Petitioner appealed the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision to deny his petitions for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner assigned error to the BIA determination that he had not experienced past persecution under his asylum claim. Petitioner argued that he had suffered past persecution because he had been attacked and threatened with death. In response, the Government argued that Petitioner did not suffer past persecution because Petitioner’s past harms were not sufficiently serious. Under Flores Molina, an asylum applicant has faced past persecution when they have repeatedly fled their homes after receiving “immediate threat[s] of severe physical violence or death.” Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4^th 626, 634 (9th Cir. 2022). The Court reasoned that Petitioner had demonstrated that he had experienced past persecution because he had been physically attacked twice, was forced to leave his home to go into hiding, and he had experienced a death threat at the hands of his attackers. Accordingly, the Court found that the BIA must finish the asylum analysis and determine whether the Indian government was unable to control the attackers and whether Petitioner was attacked on account of a protected ground. Petition granted in part and reversed and remanded to complete the asylum analysis.