[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11924

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

GURMANPREET SINGH, 

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A216-265-942

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-11924 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/14/2024 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11924

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Gurmanpreet Singh petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading 

Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). He argues that the BIA’s decision upholding an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) finding that his testimony was not credible is not supported by substantial evidence.

When, as here, the BIA adopts the reasoning of an IJ’s decision, we review both decisions. Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

577 F.3d 1341, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009). Factual and credibility determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence. Forgue v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005). The decision is affirmed if the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the decision, shows that the decision was supported by substantial, reasonable, probative evidence. Id. An adverse credibility finding must 

be based on specific and cogent reasons. Id. at 1287. To reverse an 

adverse credibility determination, the applicant must show that the 

record compels reversal. Id. Demonstrating that the record may 

also support a contrary conclusion is not sufficient to justify reversal. Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 1351.

To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must prove that he 

either (1) has been persecuted in the past based on race, religion, 

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political 

USCA11 Case: 23-11924 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/14/2024 Page: 2 of 4
23-11924 Opinion of the Court 3

opinion; or (2) has a well-founded fear that he will be persecuted in 

the future on such grounds. Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 

1231 (11th Cir. 2006). Credible testimony can, by itself, prove eligibility. Id. However, an adverse credibility finding may form the 

basis for a denial of relief. Id. An IJ may consider the testimony’s 

consistency with record evidence when deciding if it is credible. 

Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii), 

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). An alien who cannot establish asylum 

eligibility on the merits also cannot establish eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT relief. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1288 n.4.

Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision upholding the IJ’s finding that Singh’s testimony was not credible. See 

Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1286-87. Singh’s testimony that he was attacked 

on May 8, 2017, is inconsistent with record evidence showing that 

he was treated for his injuries on May 5, 2017. His testimony that 

he received stitches on his head is inconsistent with medical records 

that do not mention a head injury. Finally, his testimony that his 

parents were attacked after he left India is inconsistent with the 

medical records stating that his parents were treated for injuries 

from that attack in May 2017, almost a year before Singh left India. 

These are specific and cogent reasons justifying the IJ’s finding that 

Singh’s testimony was not credible. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287; 

INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Even if the record would also support Singh’s theory that the inconsistencies are 

because of errors in the supporting documents, rather than in his 

testimony, he cannot show that the IJ’s decision to discredit his testimony based on these inconsistencies was so lacking in support as 

USCA11 Case: 23-11924 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/14/2024 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 23-11924

to compel reversal. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1286-87; Kazemzadeh, 

577 F.3d at 1351. The BIA did not err in affirming the denial as a 

result. See Chen, 463 F.3d at 1231.

PETITION DENIED

USCA11 Case: 23-11924 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/14/2024 Page: 4 of 4