Singh v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 21-60149 Document: 00516379264 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 1, 2022
No. 21-60149 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Sarwan Singh,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A201 431 557
Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Sarwan 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) concluding that he was
ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60149 Document: 00516379264 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2022
No. 21-60149
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review his arguments under the
substantial evidence standard. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th
Cir. 2005). Additionally, we review the decision of the BIA and consider the
IJ’s decision only insofar as it influenced the BIA. See Singh v. Sessions, 880
F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018).
Singh challenges the BIA’s conclusion that he has not shown eligibility
for asylum because he has not established past persecution or a well-founded
fear of future persecution. He has not shown that substantial evidence
compels a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the question whether the
harm suffered rose to the level of persecution. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379
F.3d 182, 187-88 & n.4 (5th Cir. 2004). Moreover, Singh has not shown that
the record compels a conclusion that it would be unreasonable for him to
relocate within India. See Munoz-Granados v. Barr, 958 F.3d 402, 407-08 (5th
Cir. 2020). Because our resolution of Singh’s petition does not turn on his
credibility, we do not reach his challenge to the IJ’s and BIA’s determination
that he failed to provide evidence corroborating his claims of persecution. See
Flores-Moreno v. Barr, 971 F.3d 541, 545 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S.
Ct. 1238 (2021).
In addition, Singh complains that the BIA erred in concluding that he
had failed to present a meaningful challenge to the IJ’s denials of withholding
of removal and CAT relief and that thus those claims were waived. He did
not challenge this conclusion through a motion to reconsider or reopen.
Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider whether the BIA’s dismissal of
those claims was error. 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,
318-19 (5th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, Singh’s petition for review is DENIED in part and
DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction.
2