# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

____________ No. 23

- 60030 Summary Calendar

____________ Jagjit Singh,

Petitioner ,

versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General , Respondent

.

______________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A208 170 071

______________________________ Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : * Jagjit Singh, a native and citizen of India and proceeding pro se , petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his m otion to reopen. In 2018, a n Immigration Judge (IJ)

— after Singh conceded his removability

— ordered him removable and denied his application for asylum,

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir

. R

. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 3, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-60030 Document: 00516844560 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2023No. 23

- 60030

2 withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In doing so, it found Sin gh’s testimony incredible. The BIA affirmed that decision in March 2020, upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and ruling Singh failed to present evidence independent of his testimony to support his application. This court denied his petit ion for review, likewise upholding the adverse credibility finding. See Singh v. Garland , 843 F. App’x 632 (5th Cir. 2021). Singh filed the instant motion in May 2022, alleging changed country conditions warranted reopening. Because motions to reopen are “disfavored”, we review denial s of those motion s “ under a highly deferential abuse

- of

- discretion standard”

. Zhao v. Gonzalez , 404 F.3d 295, 303

– 04 (5th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted)

. The BIA “abuses its discretion when it issues a decision that is capricious, irrational, utterly without foundation in the evidence, based on legally erroneous interpretations of statutes or regulations, or based on unexplained departures from regulations or established policies”

. Barrios

- Cant arero v. Holder , 772 F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014). “[T]o prevail on a motion to reopen alleging changed country conditions where the persecution claim was previously denied based on an adverse credibility finding in the underlying proceedings, the respo ndent must either overcome the prior determination or show that the new claim is independent of the evidence that was found to be not credible”

. Matter of F

S

- N

- , 28 I. & N. Dec. 1, 3 (BIA 2020). Singh has failed to overcome the prior adverse credibili ty determination. The BIA ruled he failed to “proffer specific arguments” in his motion to reopen “to contest the credibility concerns relied on by the [IJ] ” in denying his application for relief. Singh does not challenge , before this court, the BIA’s ru ling nor does he even attempt to address the IJ’s concerns regarding the inconsistencies in his testimony , other than to Case: 23-60030 Document: 00516844560 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2023No. 23

- 60030

3 characterize them as “trivial” and “not material to [his] claim of persecution”

. This, however, is identical to the argument Singh mad e in his brief before the BIA, which was rejected as insufficient. See, e.g. , Singh v. Sessions , 880 F.3d 220, 22 5 (5th Cir. 2018) (explaining “IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)). Singh fail s to show the BIA’s decision was “capricious, irrational, [or] utterly without foundation in the evidence”

. Barrios

- Cantarero , 772 F. 3d at 1021. The BIA also reasonably concluded Singh failed to present a new claim that was independent from the evidence previously found not credible. See Matter of F

- S

- N

- , 28 I. & N. Dec. at 3. Here, the “new” allegations presented in Singh’s motion to reopen are : he is still a practicing Sikh who supports the Mann Party ; and , since his removal hearing, Badal Party members threatened his safety in India if he continued to support the Mann Party. These allegations are not independent of his prior claim of political persecution by the Badal Party ; they “merely supplement[] it” and “intertwin [ e ] the new with the old”

. Id. at 5 (citation omitted). As such, the BIA properly concluded that “[t]he grounds for [Singh’s] current fear of future harm are not ne w or independent of his prior application, but rather [are] a continuation of his previously discredited claims”

. See id. at 4 (providing “newly raised claim is not independent” of prior claim where it “is, in essence, a continuation of the respondent’s p reviously discredited claim s ”)

. DENIED

. Case: 23-60030 Document: 00516844560 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/03/2023