United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60499

Summary Calendar

Gurkirat Singh, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A203 676 290

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

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

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal 

from a decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

June 9, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60499 Document: 00516351120 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2022
No. 21-60499

2

Torture (CAT). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. 

The IJ specifically found that Singh was not credible regarding various 

assertions he made with respect to his claim that he was attacked because he 

converted to Christianity.

Singh contends that the IJ erred by excluding from the record various 

exhibits that were not timely filed and by using one of those excluded exhibits 

as a basis for the adverse-credibility determination. Because Singh did not 

raise these arguments in his appeal to the BIA and raises them for the first 

time in his petition, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(d)(1); Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F. 4th 353, 360 (5th Cir. 

2022); Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 320-21 (5th Cir. 2009). We also lack 

jurisdiction to consider his arguments that the IJ violated his due process 

rights, because those arguments—also raised for the first time in his 

petition—implicate procedural errors correctable by the BIA. See Roy 

v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004).

As he did in his appeal to the BIA, Singh challenges the BIA’s 

credibility determination, raising various arguments addressing the 

inconsistencies identified by the IJ. However, the IJ and the BIA cited 

“specific and cogent reasons derived from the record” to support the adverse 

credibility determination. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 2018)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Singh has failed to 

demonstrate that it is clear from the totality of the circumstances that no 

reasonable factfinder could make an adverse credibility ruling in his case. See

Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 538-40 (5th Cir. 2009). Without credible 

evidence, there was no basis for the BIA to grant asylum or withholding of 

removal. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Further, the record does not compel a conclusion different from the 

BIA’s determination that the objective evidence of record did not establish a 

Case: 21-60499 Document: 00516351120 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2022
No. 21-60499

3

likelihood that Singh would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the 

government. See Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 597-98 (5th Cir. 2021). 

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED IN PART and 

DISMISSED IN PART for lack of jurisdiction.

Case: 21-60499 Document: 00516351120 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/09/2022