A federal appeals court on Monday filed a ruling rejecting a bid for asylum by an Indian national who claimed he was beaten unconscious by political rivals, ruling that his injuries were not severe enough to constitute persecution.
But the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit came with a stinging rebuke from within its own ranks, as a concurring judge accused the court of maintaining a chaotic, “choose-your-own-adventure” system of justice that varies wildly from panel to panel.
The court denied the petition of Baljit Singh, a native of Punjab and member of the Shiromani Akali Dal (Mann) party. Singh sought asylum and withholding of removal, fearing violence from the opposing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) if he returned to India.
READ: Supreme Court Showdown: New Jersey Pregnancy Centers Fight State Demand For Donor Lists
Writing for the panel, Judge R. Nelson concluded that while Singh’s experiences were unpleasant, they did not meet the high legal bar for persecution.
According to court records, Singh outlined three specific incidents of abuse. In 2014, masked men threatened him with “bad consequences” if he didn’t abandon his political affiliation. Months later, he was attacked by men wielding wooden batons, leaving him unconscious and requiring hospitalization for three days. In a third incident in 2015, he was beaten again and subsequently detained by police for a night after trying to report the assault.
The court upheld the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) findings, noting that Singh’s injuries—swelling requiring hot compresses and pain medication—were relatively minor in the eyes of the law. The panel ruled that “not all negative treatment equates with persecution.”
Crucially, the court found Singh could simply move.
READ: Florida Sen. Rick Scott Pitches Trump-Backed Pivot Away From Obamacare Subsidies
Judge Nelson noted that Singh had previously lived safely with his in-laws, just 35 to 40 kilometers away from his home, for six months without incident. Citing a 2018 Law Library of Congress report, the court determined that “low-level” members of the Mann party face no legal obstacles to relocating within India to avoid local threats.
While Judge Lawrence VanDyke agreed with the denial based on current legal standards, he issued a fiery concurrence blasting the Ninth Circuit’s track record on similar cases.
VanDyke argued that the court has failed to uphold the “basic principle of justice” that like cases should be decided alike. He pointed out that while this panel deferred to the BIA, other panels frequently scour the record to find reasons to overturn similar findings, creating a lack of uniformity that confuses immigration courts and litigants.
“The Ninth Circuit’s caselaw is a bit of a ‘choose-your-own-adventure’ when it comes to what constitutes ‘persecution’ under immigration law,” VanDyke wrote, quoting a dissent from a separate case.
READ: F-16s Pop Flares Over Mar-a-Lago: Fighter Jets Scramble To Intercept Wayward Pilot In Florida
He noted that the outcome of an asylum petition in the circuit often hinges less on the facts and more on “which judges are drawn for the panel.” VanDyke called for a “course correction” from the Supreme Court to force the Ninth Circuit to consistently defer to executive-branch immigration decisions.
The ruling affirms the removal order against Singh, sending him back to India. The respondent in the case was listed as Attorney General Pamela Bondi.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
