United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60734

Summary Calendar

Amritpal Singh, 

Petitioner,

versus

Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A201 425 428

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Amritpal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a 

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 12, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60734 Document: 00515743799 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2021
No. 19-60734

2

Torture (CAT). The application for relief was based on religion, political 

opinion, and the CAT. 

Singh is a member of the Shiromani Akali Dal Mann Party in Punjab. 

He cites two incidents in which members of the Bharatiya Janata Party, a rival 

party that governs India, assaulted and threatened to kill him, leading him to 

seek medical treatment for bruising and a sharp-object stab wound and to 

report the incidents to the police, who refused to help him. During the 

second incident, Singh’s mother was slapped and her hair was pulled back by 

the assailants. 

The two brief incidents do not, even cumulatively, constitute the 

extreme conduct that would compel a reasonable factfinder to make a 

determination of past persecution. See Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 

(5th Cir. 2006); Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 304 & n. 4(5th Cir. 1997). And 

Singh’s claim that the BIA ignored evidence of threats is incorrect; the BIA 

explicitly mentioned that Singh had twice been threatened by his assailants. 

As for threats made after he left India, Singh does not explain how they 

constitute evidence of what happened to him before he left. But even if the 

later, non-immediate threats do somehow shed light on the question of past 

persecution, Singh still does not show that the totality of the evidence

compels a determination of past persecution. See Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 

904, 909 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 907 (2020); Chen v. Gonzales, 

470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

Additionally, we conclude, as did the BIA, that Singh failed to satisfy 

his burden of demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution because he 

did not establish that avoiding future persecution by relocating to another 

part of India was unreasonable and did not show that any alleged persecution 

was sponsored by the Indian government. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i); 

see also Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2001). In 

Case: 19-60734 Document: 00515743799 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2021
No. 19-60734

3

response to the BIA’s conclusion that the government of India had not been 

proved the sponsor of persecution, Singh offers a merely conclusory, and 

therefore ineffectual, assertion of Indian government sponsorship. See

Garrido-Morato v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 319, 321 n.1 (5th Cir. 2007).

Singh has abandoned any claim for withholding of removal by failing 

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

Also, by failing to address the sole basis for the BIA’s CAT ruling, namely, 

the lack of evidence of torture, Singh has abandoned his CAT claim. See id.; 

Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 

1987). 

PETITION DENIED.

Case: 19-60734 Document: 00515743799 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/12/2021