Singh v. Wilkinson ( 2021 )

Case: 19-60734 Document: 00515743799 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 12, 2021
No. 19-60734
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Amritpal Singh,
Petitioner,
versus
Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A201 425 428
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Amritpal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-60734 Document: 00515743799 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2021
No. 19-60734
Torture (CAT). The application for relief was based on religion, political
opinion, and the CAT.
Singh is a member of the Shiromani Akali Dal Mann Party in Punjab.
He cites two incidents in which members of the Bharatiya Janata Party, a rival
party that governs India, assaulted and threatened to kill him, leading him to
seek medical treatment for bruising and a sharp-object stab wound and to
report the incidents to the police, who refused to help him. During the
second incident, Singh’s mother was slapped and her hair was pulled back by
the assailants.
The two brief incidents do not, even cumulatively, constitute the
extreme conduct that would compel a reasonable factfinder to make a
determination of past persecution. See Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595
(5th Cir. 2006); Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 304 & n. 4(5th Cir. 1997). And
Singh’s claim that the BIA ignored evidence of threats is incorrect; the BIA
explicitly mentioned that Singh had twice been threatened by his assailants.
As for threats made after he left India, Singh does not explain how they
constitute evidence of what happened to him before he left. But even if the
later, non-immediate threats do somehow shed light on the question of past
persecution, Singh still does not show that the totality of the evidence
compels a determination of past persecution. See Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d
904, 909 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 907 (2020); Chen v. Gonzales,
470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
Additionally, we conclude, as did the BIA, that Singh failed to satisfy
his burden of demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution because he
did not establish that avoiding future persecution by relocating to another
part of India was unreasonable and did not show that any alleged persecution
was sponsored by the Indian government. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i);
see also Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2001). In
2
Case: 19-60734 Document: 00515743799 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/12/2021
No. 19-60734
response to the BIA’s conclusion that the government of India had not been
proved the sponsor of persecution, Singh offers a merely conclusory, and
therefore ineffectual, assertion of Indian government sponsorship. See
Garrido-Morato v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 319, 321 n.1 (5th Cir. 2007).
Singh has abandoned any claim for withholding of removal by failing
to brief it. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008).
Also, by failing to address the sole basis for the BIA’s CAT ruling, namely,
the lack of evidence of torture, Singh has abandoned his CAT claim. See id.;
Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987).
PETITION DENIED.
3