IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60600

Summary Calendar

SUKHNINDER 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 051 472

Before DAVIS, COSTA, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

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

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

from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) order of removal and denial of his 

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 

Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh maintains that he has established 

past persecution based on his political opinion. He also challenges the BIA’s 

 

* 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

June 14, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60600 Document: 00514513908 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/14/2018
No. 17-60600

2

ruling that he could relocate within India to avoid future persecution. Finally, 

he argues that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s denial of relief under the 

CAT.

We have authority to review only the order of the BIA unless the 

underlying decision of the IJ influenced the BIA’s decision. Wang v. Holder, 

569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). The BIA affirmed the findings and 

conclusions of the IJ; therefore, we review both decisions. See id.

An immigration court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial 

evidence. Id. Under this standard, this court may not reverse an immigration 

court’s factual findings unless “the evidence was so compelling that no 

reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Id. at 536-37. Among the 

findings of fact that we review for substantial evidence is the conclusion that 

an alien is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. Zhang v. 

Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2005).

Singh’s father was an organizer for the Congress Party and was opposed 

to the Akali Dal Party. Singh testified that he participated in political 

activities with his father. According to Singh, he and his father were “treated 

badly” by the Akali Dal Party after it won the 2013 election. He described an 

incident where he and his father where attacked by a group of six people. He 

claimed that he and his father were beaten with baseball bats and that his 

finger was cut with a sword. Singh suffered marks on his back from the beating 

and had to have five stiches on his finger.

According to Singh, his father suffered “a lot of internal injuries” and 

“some injury in his head.” Singh’s family did not report the incident to the 

police because they were sure that the police would not take any action against 

the Akali Dal Party. A few months later, Singh’s father died of a brain 

hemorrhage.

 Case: 17-60600 Document: 00514513908 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/14/2018
No. 17-60600

3

Two months after his father’s death, Singh was riding home on his 

motorcycle when a car forced him off the road. He was sure that the people in 

the car where members of the Akali Dal Party, though he admitted that they 

did not say anything to him.

A few days later, Singh’s mother sent him to live with his aunt in a city 

two hours away from his village in Punjab, India. Singh stayed with his aunt 

for four months, and although he did not go out often, he testified that he did 

not receive any additional threats from the Akali Dal Party.

Singh relies on Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzalez, 447 F.3d 343 (5th Cir. 2006), 

to argue that the harassment and single instance of physical harm he 

experienced constituted persecution. The circumstances in Singh’s case are 

different from those in Tamara-Gomez. Singh experienced a single attack by 

supporters of the Akali Dal Party. He did not allege constant and escalating 

threats like the alien in Tamara-Gomez. See 447 F.3d at 346. Moreover, unlike 

the alien in Tamara-Gomez, after Singh relocated, he received no other threats 

from the Akali Dal Party. Singh’s challenge to the BIA’s determination that 

his claims did not rise to level of past persecution is without merit.

An alien does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if he could 

avoid persecution by relocating to another part of his country “if under all the 

circumstances it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.” Eduard 

v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 194 (5th Cir. 2004); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3). 

Where, as here, the alien “does not show past persecution” and “does not 

demonstrate that a national government is the persecutor, the applicant bears 

the burden of showing that the persecution is not geographically limited in 

such a way that relocation within the applicant’s country of origin would be 

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

§ 1208.13(b)(3)(i).

 Case: 17-60600 Document: 00514513908 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/14/2018
No. 17-60600

4

The evidence presented by Singh showed that he internally relocated to 

his aunt’s house, which was located two hours from his village. Although Singh 

claims that he took certain precautions and did not go out often, he admitted 

that he encountered no further threats or physical harm during the four 

months that he lived with his aunt. Given these facts, the BIA’s determination 

that it was reasonable for Singh to internally relocate to avoid persecution was 

supported by substantial evidence. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536.

Singh has also failed to establish that he is eligible for relief under the 

CAT. To succeed on his request for relief under the CAT, he must show that it 

is more likely than not that he would be subjected to torture on his return. 

Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 354 (5th Cir. 2002). To meet this 

burden, the alien may produce evidence of past torture, an inability to relocate 

to a safer part of the country, human rights abuses committed within the 

country, and any other relevant information. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3).

Singh’s evidence of country conditions reflects, at most, that those who 

openly challenge or criticize the Akali Dal Party are “prone to various forms of 

personal harassment,” but not torture. Moreover, Singh’s claim that he cannot 

relocate to a safer part of the country is refuted by his testimony that he lived 

with his aunt in a city located two hours from his village without incident for 

four months. He also has not shown that the government would acquiesce to 

his torture by political opponents. Singh admitted that he did not report the 

incident where he and his father were beaten by Akali Dal Party supporters

after the 2013 election.

Based on the foregoing, Singh’s petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 17-60600 Document: 00514513908 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/14/2018