9th Circuit denies Retish Vikash Singh's petition, upholding the denial of his CAT protection claim…
Singh v. Blanche
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit denies Retish Vikash Singh's petition, upholding the denial of his CAT protection claim and finding no individualized risk of torture if returned to Fiji.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit denied Retish Vikash Singh's petition for review, affirming the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to dismiss his claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court found that substantial evidence supported the agency's conclusion that Singh did not face a particularized, non-speculative risk of torture in Fiji, and that current country conditions did not show the Fijian government was torturing political opponents. The court also rejected his due process claim and upheld the denial of his motion to remand based on new evidence.
Who it affects
- Who faces removal to Fiji. More broadly
- Non-speculative personal risk of torture
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 17, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 17, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 17, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Retish Vikash Singh, a Fijian-born lawful permanent resident who entered the United States in 1994, was ordered removed after being convicted of serious crimes including rape and kidnapping. Because he was ineligible for most forms of immigration relief, he sought deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), which protects people from being sent to a country where they would likely face torture. An Immigration Judge denied his CAT claim, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. Singh then petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review. On the core CAT question, the court applied the substantial evidence standard, meaning it would only overturn the agency's factual findings if the record compelled a different conclusion. The court found that the agency properly considered Singh's individual circumstances, including harm he had already suffered. The court also found that while Fiji had a history of political unrest and violence, the evidence showed that the current Fijian government was not torturing political opponents. A statement from Singh's aunt about soldiers threatening her was found insufficient, both because it may have occurred before the current prime minister took office and because vague threats alone rarely rise to the level of torture as defined by the law. Singh also argued that his right to due process was violated because the Immigration Judge improperly allowed his criminal convictions to influence the CAT decision. The court rejected this argument, noting that the IJ explicitly stated twice that the convictions were irrelevant to the CAT analysis and acknowledged that CAT protection is not a matter of discretion if the legal requirements are met. Finally, Singh asked the court to send the case back to the BIA to consider new evidence, primarily an affidavit from his aunt describing incidents involving soldiers and demands for ransom. The court upheld the BIA's denial of this motion, finding that the new evidence either would not have changed the outcome, was available before his original hearing, or, even if newly available, amounted only to vague threats that did not meet the legal threshold for torture. No dissent was noted, as the panel reached its decision unanimously.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RETISH VIKASH SINGH, No. 24-5740 Agency No. Petitioner, A042-690-457 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 15, 2026** Before: McKEOWN, OWENS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Retish Vikash Singh seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying his claim for Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection.1 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 Singh was born in Fiji but entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1994. In 2023, he was charged with removability under 8 U.S.C. § We review “legal and constitutional questions de novo,” Gonzalez-Lara v. Garland, 104 F.4th 1109, 1111 (9th Cir. 2024), and “both [the agency’s] underlying factual findings and [its] application of the INA to those findings” for substantial evidence, Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 607 U.S. 537, 545 (2026); see Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2020). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand for abuse of discretion. Alcarez-Rodriguez v. Garland, 89 F.4th 754, 759 (9th Cir. 2023). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition and the motion for remand. 1. CAT claim. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding of no individualized risk of torture. 2 To establish future risk of torture, “[t]he record must show that it is more likely than not that the petitioner will face a particularized and non-speculative risk of torture.” Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 980 (9th Cir. 2023) (emphasis in original). Contrary to Singh’s contentions, the agency considered all 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) for previous convictions including rape and kidnapping, but he is eligible for deferral of removal under CAT. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17(a). 2 Singh also claims fear of torture based on his status as a bisexual man and presented some evidence of harm towards members of the LGBTQ community in Fiji. The BIA determined that Singh waived that issue because he did not meaningfully address the IJ’s conclusion that he presented insufficient evidence. Singh does not challenge the BIA’s waiver determination on appeal, and therefore he has forfeited that theory. Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th 908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022). 2 24-5740 relevant considerations for future torture based on Singh’s individual circumstances, including the harm he currently experiences due to past torture. Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that although Fiji had a history of unrest and political violence, country conditions have changed such that there is no evidence that the Fijian government is currently torturing political opponents. See id. at 980 (“Generalized evidence of violence and crime is insufficient to establish a likelihood of torture.”). Nor does Singh’s aunt’s statement about soldiers threatening her sometime before November 2022 suffice to establish future torture. Singh does not rebut the agency’s finding that this event could not have occurred while the current prime minister of Fiji held office. Even if it did, “cases with threats alone, particularly . . . vague ones, rarely constitute persecution,” especially in light of there being no evidence of current torture against political opponents in Fiji. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019); see also Korablina v. INS, 158 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphasizing that torture is an “extreme concept” that “does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive”) (citation omitted). 2. Due process claim. For a due process claim, a petitioner must show that “(1) the proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case, and (2) the alien [must] demonstrate[] prejudice, which means that the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the 3 24-5740 alleged violation.” Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620–21 (9th Cir. 2006) (simplified). Singh claims that his right to due process was violated because the criminal convictions underlying his charge for removability tainted the IJ’s decision, given that the IJ referenced his convictions and “admonished” Singh’s criminal history. But Singh has not provided any evidence to support his theory. On the contrary, the IJ explained twice that Singh’s convictions were irrelevant to whether he qualified for CAT protection, and acknowledged that protection under CAT is not discretionary if the requirements are met. Thus, Singh has not presented evidence of a due process violation. 3. Motion to remand. A motion to remand based on newly obtained evidence must show that the evidence is material and that the evidence “could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” Alcarez-Rodriguez, 89 F.4th at 760. The BIA denied Singh’s motion to remand based on his aunt’s affidavit for several reasons, none of which constitute an abuse of discretion. The BIA appropriately concluded that Singh’s aunt’s statement that she was forced to pay ransom for land use in Fiji would not affect the outcome of his claim. See Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008). The BIA also reasonably concluded that the December 2023 incident involving soldiers coming to Singh’s aunt’s home was information available prior to Singh’s hearing in March 2024 and thus could not serve as a basis for the motion to remand. Finally, Singh 4 24-5740 did not show that his aunt’s statement that she was threatened by soldiers sometime in March 2024 was unavailable prior to his hearing that same month. Even if it was unavailable, similarly to the threats his aunt received sometime prior to November 2022, the vague statement that Singh would be “hurt and put . . . in jail” upon return to Fiji, without more, does not rise to the level of torture required by this circuit. Cf. Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1218-20 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that petitioner showed sufficient likelihood of future torture in his home country where among other things, after petitioner fled, the government closed petitioner’s father’s business and forcibly kidnapped his two brothers). DENIED. 5 24-5740
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.