United States Court of Appeals

for 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 motion to reopen. 

In 2018, an 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: 08/03/2023
No. 23-60030

2

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against 

Torture. In doing so, it found Singh’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 petition 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 denials of 

those motions “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-Cantarero 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 respondent 

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 FS-N-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 1, 3 (BIA 2020). 

Singh has failed to overcome the prior adverse credibility 

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 ruling 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: 08/03/2023
No. 23-60030

3

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

persecution”. This, however, is identical to the argument Singh made in his 

brief before the BIA, which was rejected as insufficient. See, e.g., Singh v. 

Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 2018) (explaining “IJ may rely on any 

inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination” 

(emphasis added) (citation omitted)). Singh fails 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 new 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 previously discredited 

claims”).

DENIED.

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