IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60187

Summary Calendar

GOVINDPREET 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. A202 058 411

Before REAVLEY, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Govindpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions this court for 

review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing 

his appeal from the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying Singh’s 

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 

Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh contends that the IJ’s and the BIA’s 

adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence 

 

* 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

July 25, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60187 Document: 00514571204 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/25/2018
No. 17-60187

2

and that he corroborated his credible testimony with documentary evidence 

that was not sufficiently considered. Singh presents no argument on the denial 

of his request for relief under the CAT, and any challenge to that denial of 

relief is waived. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).

Where, as here, the BIA approved of and relied upon the IJ’s decision, in 

addition to providing its own review of the evidence and the law, we have

authority to review both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions. Wang v. Holder, 569 

F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). We review factual findings, including credibility 

determinations, for substantial evidence. Id. Under this highly deferential 

standard, our court will not reach a different result unless “the evidence is so 

compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” 

Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).

The IJ’s and the BIA’s adverse credibility determinations were based on 

specific inconsistencies and discrepancies among Singh’s testimony, his 

application for relief from removal, and the documentary evidence he 

submitted. The first, and most glaring, inconsistency was between Singh’s 

written statement that he was beaten during an August 2012 incident and his 

testimony indicating that he merely assumed he was beaten because of pain in 

his leg. He argues here that his assumption that he was beaten was consistent 

with his written statement that he had been beaten, and he argues that the IJ 

failed to explore possible reasons for the inconsistency. We do not consider the 

challenge to this particular inconsistency because the arguments Singh 

presents here are not the same as the argument he presented to the BIA. See

8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318-19 (5th Cir. 2009).

Singh’s challenge to the other two inconsistencies specifically mentioned 

by the IJ and the BIA is unavailing. The adverse credibility determinations 

are substantially reasonable and supported by the record. See Wang, 569 F.3d

 Case: 17-60187 Document: 00514571204 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/25/2018
No. 17-60187

3

at 539-40. Because Singh has not shown that, under the totality of the 

circumstances, the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder 

could fail to find him credible, we defer to the IJ’s and the BIA’s adverse 

credibility determinations. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197

(5th Cir. 1996). In the light of the adverse credibility determinations, Singh

has not shown that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s denial of his requested 

relief from removal. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 657-59 (5th Cir. 2012). 

Because Singh’s lack of credibility is an adequate ground for upholding the 

BIA’s decision, we need not address the alternative holding that Singh could 

reasonably relocate within India and thus would not be eligible for asylum even 

if he had been found credible. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994).

Accordingly, Singh’s petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 17-60187 Document: 00514571204 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/25/2018