Singh v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 19-60738 Document: 00515826911 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 19, 2021
No. 19-60738
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Sukhdeep Singh,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A 201 422 112
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Sukhdeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions us to review
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ approval of his order of removal. He
argues that he has proven the elements of his asylum claim on the basis of
past persecution and fear of future persecution. The Board rejected Singh’s
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-60738 Document: 00515826911 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2021
No. 19-60738
appeal of his past persecution claim on the grounds of the harm he described
not being extreme enough. The Board also rejected Singh’s fear of future
persecution claim because Singh did not show relocation within his home
country would be unreasonable. We review decisions of the Board with
deference and so only overturn their conclusions when the evidence compels
us. See Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007)
Persecution for the purposes of a past persecution asylum claim must
be extreme conduct. Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006); see
also Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012). Our
precedent holds that harm analogous to what Singh described experiencing
does not rise to the level of persecution. See, e.g., Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73
F.3d 579, 584 (5th Cir. 1996); Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187-88 (5th
Cir. 2004). Therefore, the Board’s decision is in line with the law of this
circuit.
Asylum can also be based on a reasonable fear of future persecution.
Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444-45 (5th Cir. 2001). Even
assuming that the fear was subjectively reasonable, that fear must also be
objectively reasonable and this element is not fulfilled when internal
relocation is reasonable. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(ii). Reviewing the evidence
does not compel us to find that relocation is unreasonable in this case. See
Zhu, 493 F.3d at 593.
DENIED.
2