United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 20-60425 

Summary Calendar 

Vikramjeet Singh, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

BIA No. A201 739 619 

Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Smith and Elrod, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

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

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

a decision by an Immigration Judge (IJ) that denied his applications for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 

January 4, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 20-60425 Document: 00516153856 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2022
No. 20-60425 

2 

Torture (CAT). He contends that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s adverse 

credibility determination and, accordingly, that he is eligible for relief. 

Our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, but we may consider the 

IJ’s decision to the extent it affected the BIA’s. See Orellana-Monson v. 

Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). The BIA’s factual findings, 

including credibility determinations, are reviewed for substantial evidence; 

its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Id. at 517-18; see also Avelar-Oliva 

v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 763 (5th Cir. 2020). Determinations regarding 

eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT are 

also reviewed for substantial evidence. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 

(5th Cir. 2006). To prevail under the substantial evidence standard, the 

petitioner must show the evidence in his favor “was so compelling that no 

reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 

531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009). 

In affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, the BIA relied 

on omissions or inconsistencies that Singh contends do not justify the IJ’s 

finding. An adverse credibility assessment, however, may be based on “any 

inconsistency,” even if it does not go to the heart of the applicant’s claim. 

Avelar-Oliva, 954 F.3d at 768; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Ghotra v. 

Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284, 289 (5th Cir. 2019). Singh has not established that 

no reasonable factfinder could come to the same conclusions as the BIA. See

Avelar-Olivia, 954 F.3d at 768-69; Wang, 569 F.3d at 540. He thus has not 

established that the evidence compels us to conclude otherwise, and the 

adverse credibility finding stands. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 537. Accordingly, 

substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Singh failed to show 

he qualifies for asylum or withholding of removal. See Singh v. Sessions, 880 

F.3d 220, 226 (5th Cir. 2018); Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658 (5th Cir. 

2012). 

Case: 20-60425 Document: 00516153856 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2022
No. 20-60425 

3 

An alien may obtain protection under the CAT if he shows, inter alia, 

that he is more likely than not to be tortured if removed to the proposed 

country of removal. Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 

2015). The BIA concluded that Singh failed to make this showing, and he has 

not demonstrated that the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. See 

Wang, 569 F.3d at 537. 

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED. 

Case: 20-60425 Document: 00516153856 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/04/2022