Singh v. Garland

Case: 22-60395 Document: 00516727360 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-60395
April 26, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Amardeep Singh,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A215 541 509
______________________________
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Amardeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal
from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) concluding that he was ineligible
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). Insofar as he contends that this court should remand the
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60395 Document: 00516727360 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2023
No. 22-60395
case to have his future persecution claim reconsidered on the evidence in the
record, this argument lacks merit because he does not seek to present to the
BIA an issue that it has not had a chance to consider. See Siwe v. Holder, 742
F.3d 603, 612 (5th Cir. 2014). Insofar as he challenges the BIA’s
discretionary decision to assign his case to a one-member panel, we lack
jurisdiction to consider this exercise of discretion. See Cantu-Delgadillo v.
Holder, 584 F.3d 682, 691 (5th Cir. 2009).
We review the denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT claims for
substantial evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).
Pursuant to this standard, we may not disturb the BIA’s decision unless the
evidence “compels” a contrary conclusion. Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Additionally, we consider the IJ’s decision only insofar as
it influences the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018).
With respect to asylum and withholding, Singh has not met this
standard because he cites nothing compelling a conclusion contrary to that of
the agency on the issue whether he showed past persecution or a likelihood
of future persecution in India. See Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 402 (5th
Cir. 2021); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002); see also Kumar
v. Garland, 52 F.4th 957, 970 (5th Cir. 2022), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Jan.
19, 2023) (No. 22-681); Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 224-25,
228 (5th Cir. 2019). His arguments concerning CAT relief likewise fail
because he has not shown that the record compels a conclusion contrary to
that of the BIA on the issue whether he more likely than not would be
tortured if repatriated. See Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir.
2017); see also Tibakweitira v. Wilkinson, 986 F.3d 905, 911 (5th Cir. 2021).
Finally, his due process argument is unavailing because he has not shown
“that the alleged violation affected the outcome of the proceeding.” See
Arteaga-Ramirez v. Barr, 954 F.3d 812, 813 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
2
Case: 22-60395 Document: 00516727360 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/26/2023
No. 22-60395
The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in
part.
3