Singh v. Wilkinson ( 2021 )

Case: 19-60831 Document: 00515759948 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 26, 2021
No. 19-60831 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Manpreet Singh,
Petitioner,
versus
Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A 215 912 576
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Manpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal
of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and of an order denying
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin-
ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances
set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-60831 Document: 00515759948 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2021
No. 19-60831
his motion to reopen. To the extent that Singh contends that his due process
rights were violated because the immigration judge was biased and did not
act as a neutral factfinder, that claim is unexhausted, so we lack jurisdiction
to address it. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452−53 (5th Cir. 2001).
We review the BIA’s decision; we consider the immigration judge’s
decision only to the extent that it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions,
880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings are reviewed for sub-
stantial evidence, legal determinations de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft,
263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001).
Although Singh posits that he suffered persecution when he was at-
tacked twice, resulting in injuries to his leg, back, and chest, those incidents
are not extreme enough to compel a finding of past persecution. See Qorane
v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 909 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 907 (2020).
Accordingly, there is no basis to overturn the BIA’s determination that Singh
failed to demonstrate past persecution. Because Singh merely urges that his
fear of future persecution is subjectively and objectively reasonable, and
because he does not address the BIA’s determination that he could safely re-
locate within India, he has abandoned any challenge to the decision that he
does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Chambers v.
Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008).
Because Singh “failed to establish the less stringent ‘well-founded
fear’ standard of proof required for asylum relief,” he cannot meet the more
stringent burden for obtaining withholding of removal. See Dayo v. Holder,
687 F.3d 653, 658−59 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243,
253 (4th Cir. 2008)). Additionally, Singh is unable to demonstrate that he is
entitled to protection under the CAT because the incidents specific to him
do not even rise to the level of persecution. See Qorane, 919 F.3d at 911.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen under a highly deferential
2
Case: 19-60831 Document: 00515759948 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/26/2021
No. 19-60831
abuse-of-discretion standard. Lowe v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 713, 715 (5th Cir.
2017). Although Singh has presented evidence that after his Rashtriya Lok
Dal Party member cousin fled India, his uncle was killed by Bharatiya Janata
Party members looking for his cousin, that evidence is insufficient to establish
that Singh was subjected to past persecution because he was not the intended
target of the harm inflicted on his cousin and his uncle. See Martinez-Lopez
v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 771 (5th Cir. 2019). In any event, Singh has failed to
show that he is entitled to reopening because the evidence is neither material
nor previously unavailable. The evidence is immaterial because it does not
address the BIA’s determination that Singh could safely relocate within
India. See Mendias-Mendoza v. Sessions, 877 F.3d 223, 228 (5th Cir. 2017).
Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to
reopen.
Based upon the foregoing, the petition for review is DENIED in part
and DISMISSED in part.
3