Singh v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 21-60499 Document: 00516351120 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 9, 2022
No. 21-60499
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Gurkirat Singh,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A203 676 290
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Gurkirat Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal
from a decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60499 Document: 00516351120 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2022
No. 21-60499
Torture (CAT). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
The IJ specifically found that Singh was not credible regarding various
assertions he made with respect to his claim that he was attacked because he
converted to Christianity.
Singh contends that the IJ erred by excluding from the record various
exhibits that were not timely filed and by using one of those excluded exhibits
as a basis for the adverse-credibility determination. Because Singh did not
raise these arguments in his appeal to the BIA and raises them for the first
time in his petition, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1); Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F. 4th 353, 360 (5th Cir.
2022); Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 320-21 (5th Cir. 2009). We also lack
jurisdiction to consider his arguments that the IJ violated his due process
rights, because those arguments—also raised for the first time in his
petition—implicate procedural errors correctable by the BIA. See Roy
v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004).
As he did in his appeal to the BIA, Singh challenges the BIA’s
credibility determination, raising various arguments addressing the
inconsistencies identified by the IJ. However, the IJ and the BIA cited
“specific and cogent reasons derived from the record” to support the adverse
credibility determination. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 2018)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Singh has failed to
demonstrate that it is clear from the totality of the circumstances that no
reasonable factfinder could make an adverse credibility ruling in his case. See
Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 538-40 (5th Cir. 2009). Without credible
evidence, there was no basis for the BIA to grant asylum or withholding of
removal. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994).
Further, the record does not compel a conclusion different from the
BIA’s determination that the objective evidence of record did not establish a
2
Case: 21-60499 Document: 00516351120 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/09/2022
No. 21-60499
likelihood that Singh would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the
government. See Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 597-98 (5th Cir. 2021).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED IN PART and
DISMISSED IN PART for lack of jurisdiction.
3