IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-60653

Summary Calendar

JAGROOP THINO SINGH,

Petitioner

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A205 408 160

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jagroop Thino Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review 

of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal 

of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

(“CAT”). Singh argues that the BIA erred by (1) concluding that he failed to 

preserve for appeal his due process claims based on the absence of a translator 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 15, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-60653 Document: 00514349173 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2018
No. 16-60653

2

who spoke his native language at the merits hearing and (2) affirming the IJ’s 

finding that he failed to introduce reasonably available corroborative evidence 

to support his claims. By failing to brief the issues, Singh has waived any 

challenge to the BIA’s determination that he failed to file his asylum claim in 

a timely manner and failed to show extraordinary circumstances to justify the 

delay. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Further, given Singh’s failure to argue at any point in his brief that he is more 

likely than not to be tortured should he return to India, he has waived his claim 

that he is entitled to relief under the CAT. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 

1208.18(a); Chambers, 520 F.3d at 448 n.1.

This court reviews constitutional claims de novo. See Sattani v. Holder, 

749 F.3d 368, 370 (5th Cir. 2014). Removal proceedings must be conducted “in 

accord with due process standards of fundamental fairness.” Bouchikhi v. 

Holder, 676 F.3d 173, 180 (5th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). To prevail on a 

due process claim, an alien must show substantial prejudice arising from the 

alleged violation. Id. However, “an alien’s failure to exhaust his 

administrative remedies serves as a jurisdictional bar to [this court’s] 

consideration of the issue.” Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Singh failed to preserve his due process claim because he raised it for the first 

time before the BIA, which deprives this court of jurisdiction to review the 

claim. See id.

On petition for review of a BIA decision, this court reviews factual 

findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. Lopez-Gomez 

v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). This court reviews only the order 

of the BIA unless the IJ’s decision “has some impact on the BIA’s decision,” 

Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997), in which case it reviews the 

IJ’s decision as well, Wang, 569 F.3d at 536. Here, because the BIA found it 

 Case: 16-60653 Document: 00514349173 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2018
No. 16-60653

3

unnecessary to discuss the IJ’s findings on credibility, this court will not 

consider the IJ’s credibility determinations. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536. 

Pursuant to the substantial-evidence standard, “this court may not overturn 

the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” 

Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009).

To prove eligibility for withholding of removal, “[t]he testimony of the 

applicant, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without 

corroboration.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b). The IJ may, however, require an alien to 

submit evidence corroborating even credible testimony if the evidence is 

reasonably obtainable. Cf. Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 585, 587 (5th Cir. 

2011) (evaluating the sufficiency of evidence supporting asylum claim). On 

review of the BIA’s finding that an alien failed to provide sufficient 

corroboration for his claim, the relevant question is whether “a reasonable trier 

of fact is compelled to conclude that such corroborating evidence is 

unavailable.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4).

The BIA decided that Singh’s failure to introduce corroborative evidence 

was fatal to his claims. See Yang, 664 F.3d at 587. Singh failed to present a 

party-membership card, medical reports, police reports, or affidavits from 

material witnesses. Singh testified that he did not know that he needed the 

evidence. Further, he stated that the party-membership card and medical 

reports were at his house in India, where his parents, brother, and brother’s 

wife and child live. Based on these undisputed facts, a reasonable trier of fact 

would not be compelled to conclude that corroborating evidence was 

unavailable. See Yang, 664 F.3d at 587.

Singh’s petition is DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction with 

respect to his due process claim and DENIED with respect to his remaining 

claims. 

 Case: 16-60653 Document: 00514349173 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/15/2018