IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60400

Summary Calendar

MANDEEP SINGH,

Petitioner,

versus

LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Mandeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the 

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to 

reopen. Singh was charged with entering the United States without inspection 

in 2011. He sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 20, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60400 Document: 00513726880 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2016
No. 15-60400

2

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), claiming he was threatened and injured 

by members of rival political party in India—the Akali Dal (Badal) party—for 

refusing to join their ranks. He alleged that his life was in “grave danger” and 

that he could not relocate to another state in India, so he left India and attempted entry into the United States. 

The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied relief, and the BIA affirmed but 

remanded, instructing the IJ to make additional findings concerning Singh’s 

eligibility for protection under the CAT. On remand, the IJ made further findings, denied relief under the CAT, and ordered Singh removed to India. Singh 

did not appeal the IJ’s order.

More than nine months later, Singh filed an untimely motion to reopen, 

asserting that the Indian police had threatened him and wrongly accused him 

of receiving terrorist training in Pakistan. In support of his claims, he submitted affidavits from his mother and the Sarpanch of his Indian village, and the 

State Department’s 2012 Country Report for India. He averred that the Country Report verified his new fear of returning to India, because it established 

that human rights violations regularly occur in India, and the Indian police 

and security forces commit serious abuses. Singh claimed entitlement to relief

based on changed circumstances. The IJ denied the motion to reopen, and the 

BIA dismissed the appeal. 

We review the denial of a motion to reopen under a “highly deferential 

abuse-of-discretion standard.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303–04 (5th 

Cir. 2005). Under that standard, the BIA’s ruling will stand, even if this court 

concludes it is erroneous, “so long as it is not capricious, racially invidious, 

utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is 

arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Id.

at 304 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

 Case: 15-60400 Document: 00513726880 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2016
No. 15-60400

3

The BIA found, inter alia, that “the State Department’s 2012 Country 

Reports for India did not describe a change in country conditions that are materially different than [sic] the conditions in place at the time [Singh] was 

ordered removed.” The BIA further found that, although the Report describes 

“ongoing violence by both insurgents and security forces,” it “does not indicate 

whether conditions have substantially deteriorated since [Singh’s] order of 

removal.” 

Those conclusions find support in the record. A motion to reopen can be 

denied where the evidence of changed conditions shows only a continuance of 

ongoing violence in the home country.1 Moreover, Singh’s assertion that he 

fears for his safety upon returning to India, given the new threats and violence 

experienced by his mother and the Indian police’s targeting of him, amounts to 

a change in personal circumstances and does not constitute changed country 

conditions.2

The petition for review is DENIED.

 

1 See, e.g., Ramos v. Lynch, 622 F. App’x 432, 433 (5th Cir. 2015); Das v. Holder, 490 F. 

App’x 672, 673 (5th Cir. 2012); Thomas v. Holder, 396 F. App’x 60, 61 (5th Cir. 2010); Himani 

v. Mukasey, 305 F. App’x 229, 231 (5th Cir. 2008).

2 See Gatamba v. Holder, 485 F. App’x 690, 691 (5th Cir. 2012); Yang Xin Chun v. 

Holder, 335 F. App’x 454, 455 (5th Cir. 2009); Keivani v. Gonzales, 214 F. App’x 469, 470 (5th 

Cir. 2007); Zhao, 404 F.3d at 407.

 Case: 15-60400 Document: 00513726880 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/20/2016