Sukhwinder Singh v. U.S. Attorney General ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA11 Case: 22-11735   Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 03/14/2023    Page: 1 of 8
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eleventh Circuit
    ____________________
    No. 22-11735
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ____________________
    SUKHWINDER SINGH,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    ____________________
    Petition for Review of a Decision of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Agency No. A208-182-008
    ____________________
    USCA11 Case: 22-11735     Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 03/14/2023    Page: 2 of 8
    2                      Opinion of the Court                22-11735
    Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Sukhwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks re-
    view of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order affirming the
    Immigration Judge’s denial of his claims for asylum and withhold-
    ing of removal, as well as his motion to change venue.
    First, Singh asserts that his asylum and withholding claims
    were improperly denied because the BIA wrongly concluded that
    he waived a challenge to the IJ’s dispositive finding of changed cir-
    cumstances in his home country. Specifically, he contends that the
    IJ and BIA used an improper standard for assessing changed circum-
    stances, erred in concluding that he did not suffer past persecution,
    failed to consider all the evidence in light of the presumption that
    he was credible, and ignored new evidence that he presented on
    appeal to the BIA. Second, Singh asserts that the BIA’s decision
    affirming the denial of his change-of-venue motion lacked reasoned
    consideration of the arguments and evidence. After careful review,
    we deny Singh’s petition in part and dismiss it in part.
    I
    We review only the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that
    the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision. Kazemzadeh v. U.S.
    Att’y Gen., 
    577 F.3d 1341
    , 1350 (11th Cir. 2009). In deciding
    whether to uphold the BIA’s decision, we are limited to the
    grounds on which the BIA relied. See Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
    USCA11 Case: 22-11735     Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 03/14/2023    Page: 3 of 8
    22-11735               Opinion of the Court                        3
    
    820 F.3d 399
    , 403 (11th Cir. 2016) (stating that this Court does not
    consider issues that the BIA did not reach); NLRB v. U.S. Postal
    Serv., 
    526 F.3d 729
    , 732 n.2 (11th Cir. 2008) (stating that an admin-
    istrative agency ruling “cannot be upheld unless the grounds upon
    which the agency acted . . . were those upon which its action can
    be sustained” (quotation omitted)). We review legal conclusions
    de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Perez-Zen-
    teno v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 
    913 F.3d 1301
    , 1306 (11th Cir. 2019).
    “[A]gencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision
    of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.” I.N.S. v. Baga-
    masbad, 
    429 U.S. 24
    , 25 (1976).
    We may review a final order of removal only if the alien has
    exhausted all administrative remedies available to him as a matter
    of right. INA § 242(d)(1), 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (d)(1). The exhaustion
    requirement is jurisdictional and precludes review of a claim that
    was not presented to the BIA. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y
    Gen., 
    463 F.3d 1247
    , 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). To exhaust a claim, it is
    not enough that the petitioner merely identified an issue before the
    BIA. Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 
    810 F.3d 792
    , 800 (11th Cir. 2016).
    Instead, he must raise the “core issue” before the BIA and set out
    any discrete arguments that he relies on in support of that claim.
    
    Id.
     While the petitioner is not required to use precise legal termi-
    nology or provide well-developed arguments, he must provide
    enough information to permit the BIA to review and correct any
    errors below. 
    Id.
     “Unadorned, conclusory statements do not sat-
    isfy this requirement, and the petitioner must do more than make
    USCA11 Case: 22-11735      Document: 21-1       Date Filed: 03/14/2023     Page: 4 of 8
    4                       Opinion of the Court                  22-11735
    a passing reference to the issue.” 
    Id.
     (internal quotation omitted).
    However, a party cannot be barred for failure to raise an argument
    about a decision not yet in existence. Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
    
    779 F.3d 1284
    , 1299 (2015) (rejecting as “facially nonsensical” the
    argument that an alien failed to exhaust her claim that the BIA’s
    decision lacked reasoned consideration when that argument was
    based on a “decision not yet in existence”).
    The Attorney General has the discretion to grant asylum to
    an alien who establishes that he is a refugee. INA § 208(b)(1)(A), 
    8 U.S.C. § 1158
    (b)(1)(A). The burden is on the alien to establish that
    he is a refugee. INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(i), 
    8 U.S.C. § 1158
    (b)(1)(B)(i). A
    refugee includes any person “who is unable or unwilling to return
    to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the pro-
    tection of, [the person’s home] country because of persecution or
    a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, na-
    tionality, membership in a particular social group, or political opin-
    ion.” INA § 101(a)(42)(A), 
    8 U.S.C. § 1101
    (a)(42)(A).
    To meet the definition of a refugee, the applicant “must,
    with specific and credible evidence, demonstrate (1) past persecu-
    tion on account of a statutorily listed factor, or (2) a ‘well-founded
    fear’ that the statutorily-listed factor will cause future persecution.”
    Ruiz v. Att’y Gen., 
    440 F.3d 1247
    , 1257 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing 
    8 C.F.R. § 208.13
    (a)–(b)). Where an applicant demonstrates past per-
    secution, a rebuttable presumption that he has a well-founded fear
    of future prosecution applies. 
    Id.
     The presumption can be over-
    come with a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that
    USCA11 Case: 22-11735      Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 03/14/2023     Page: 5 of 8
    22-11735               Opinion of the Court                         5
    either (1) there was a fundamental change in circumstances such
    that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution
    or (2) the applicant could avoid future persecution by relocating to
    another part of the country. 
    8 C.F.R. § 208.13
    (b)(1)(i)(A)–(B).
    Under the withholding of removal provision of the INA, an
    alien shall not be removed to a country if his “life or freedom would
    be threatened” on account of “race, religion, nationality, member-
    ship in a particular social group, or political opinion.” INA
    § 241(b)(3), 
    8 U.S.C. § 1231
    (b)(3)(A). The burden of proof is on the
    alien to show his eligibility for withholding of removal. 
    8 C.F.R. § 208.16
    (b). The alien must demonstrate that it is more likely than
    not that he will be persecuted or tortured on being returned to his
    country. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 
    401 F.3d 1226
    , 1232 (11th
    Cir. 2005). This is a more stringent standard than for asylum, and
    an applicant who cannot meet the well-founded-fear standard for
    asylum is generally precluded from qualifying for either asylum or
    withholding of removal. 
    Id.
     at 1232–33. If an alien establishes past
    persecution in a country, it is presumed that his life or freedom
    would be threatened on return to that country unless the DHS
    shows by a preponderance of the evidence that either (1) there has
    been a fundamental change in circumstances such that the appli-
    cant’s life or freedom would no longer be threatened on his depor-
    tation or removal or (2) the applicant could avoid future threat by
    relocating to another part of the country. 
    8 C.F.R. § 208.16
    (b)(1)(i).
    Here, the BIA correctly concluded that Singh waived a chal-
    lenge to the IJ’s dispositive changed-circumstances finding, and
    USCA11 Case: 22-11735      Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 03/14/2023     Page: 6 of 8
    6                       Opinion of the Court                 22-11735
    thus the BIA did not err in affirming the IJ’s denial of Singh’s asylum
    and withholding of removal claims.
    Singh’s argument that the IJ misapplied the changed-circum-
    stance requirement is unexhausted, and we dismiss the petition as
    to that argument. See Kazemzadeh, 
    577 F.3d at 1350
    ; Gonzalez,
    
    820 F.3d at 403
    ; NLRB, 
    526 F.3d at
    732 n.2; Jeune, 
    810 F.3d at 800
    .
    His arguments about the BIA not fully or correctly addressing the
    evidence, or not considering certain evidence, are unavailing be-
    cause in light of its waiver finding, the BIA was not required to ad-
    dress any evidence at all. Bagamasbad, 
    429 U.S. at 25
    . Accordingly,
    we deny Singh’s petition in that regard.
    II
    Whether the BIA’s decision shows reasoned consideration is
    reviewed de novo. Bing Quan Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 
    881 F.3d 860
    ,
    872 (11th Cir. 2018). Absent reasoned consideration and adequate
    findings, we must remand for further proceedings. Ali v. U.S. Att’y
    Gen., 
    931 F.3d 1327
    , 1333 (11th Cir. 2019).
    The BIA must consider all evidence that an applicant has
    submitted. Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 
    446 F.3d 1369
    , 1374 (11th Cir.
    2006). The BIA must “consider the issues raised and announce its
    decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive
    that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” 
    Id.
     (quota-
    tion omitted). The BIA does not give reasoned consideration to a
    claim when it misstates the contents of the record, fails to ade-
    quately explain its refusal of logical conclusions, or provides
    USCA11 Case: 22-11735      Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 03/14/2023     Page: 7 of 8
    22-11735               Opinion of the Court                         7
    justifications for its decision which are unreasonable and which do
    not respond to any arguments in the record. 
    Id.
     at 1375–77; see
    also Jean-Pierre v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 
    500 F.3d 1315
    , 1325–26 (11th
    Cir. 2007) (remanding a CAT claim for failure to give reasoned con-
    sideration). However, the agency “need not address specifically
    each claim the petitioner made or each piece of evidence the peti-
    tioner presented.” Jeune, 
    810 F.3d at 803
     (quotation omitted).
    An IJ may grant a motion for change of venue if a party
    shows “good cause,” but may not grant it without giving the other
    party notice and an opportunity to respond. 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.20
    (b).
    In determining whether good cause exists to grant a change of
    venue, an IJ considers such factors as, among others, administrative
    convenience, expeditious treatment of the case, the location of the
    witnesses, and the costs of transporting witnesses or evidence to a
    new location. See Matter of Rahman, 
    20 I. & N. Dec. 480
    , 483
    (B.I.A. 1992).
    “It is a foundational princip[le] of administrative law that a
    reviewing court must review only the information that was before
    the agency at the time of its decision in assessing whether that de-
    cision was permissible.” Salmeron-Salmeron v. Spivey, 
    926 F.3d 1283
    , 1286 (11th Cir. 2019). The INA provides that a court of ap-
    peals, in reviewing a final order of removal, “shall decide the peti-
    tion only on the administrative record on which the order of re-
    moval is based.” INA § 242(b)(4)(A), 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (b)(4)(A). The
    record on review of an agency order consists of the order of which
    the petitioner seeks review, as well as “any findings or report on
    USCA11 Case: 22-11735      Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 03/14/2023     Page: 8 of 8
    8                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11735
    which it is based” and “the pleadings, evidence, and other parts of
    the proceedings before the agency.” Fed. R. App. P. 16(a)(1)–(3).
    As an initial matter, Singh’s argument that the administra-
    tive record is incomplete because it lacks materials that he filed in
    an interlocutory appeal to the BIA is meritless. Singh’s petition
    challenges the BIA’s order affirming the IJ’s removal order, and our
    review is limited to the record on which that BIA order is based.
    Salmeron-Salmeron, 
    926 F.3d at 1286
    .
    Furthermore, the BIA’s decision to deny the change of
    venue motion did not lack reasoned consideration, even though it
    did not address every claim that Singh made. The BIA neither mis-
    stated the record, failed to explain a refusal of logical conclusions,
    nor provided a justification that was unreasonable or did not re-
    spond to arguments in the record. See Tan, 
    446 F.3d at
    1375–77.
    The BIA reviewed the IJ’s reasoning in denying the motion and
    concluded both that the IJ had reviewed the necessary relevant fac-
    tors and that his finding of no good cause to change venue was cor-
    rect. Having done so, the BIA was not required to address every
    claim that Singh made, including that the IJ should have let DHS
    file a response and that Singh would be prejudiced by not changing
    venue. Jeune, 
    810 F.3d at 800
    ; 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.20
    (b). Accordingly,
    we deny Singh’s petition for review as to this issue.
    PETITION DENIED IN PART AN DISMISSED IN PART.