The Ninth Circuit has determined that a Sikh asylum seeker has established past persecution, despite the agency’s finding that he only suffered minor injuries. “Five factors compel the conclusion that Singh indeed experienced serious harm: (1) he was forced to flee his home after being repeatedly assaulted; (2) one of those incidents involved a death threat; (3) he was between the ages of 16 and 18 when the attacks occurred; (4) his brother also experienced this violence; and (5) we have already recognized that Mann Party members have faced persistent threats in the region of India where Singh was twice attacked.”
“Singh had to flee his home after he was the victim of a verbal confrontation and two physical attacks, one of which involved a death threat. Based on our precedents, he suffered serious harm. The BIA disagreed, noting that Singh suffered from only bruises, scratches, and swollen body parts after these altercations. But we do not require severe injuries to meet the serious-harm prong of the past-persecution analysis.”
The full text of Singh v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/09/14/20-72806.pdf