United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60438

Summary Calendar

Arshdeep Singh, also known as Archdeep 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 747 844

Before Jones, Barksdale, and Stewart, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

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

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

of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying: his application for asylum; withholding 

of removal; and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

March 3, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60438 Document: 00515764822 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2021
No. 20-60438

2

contends: the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility 

determination in his application (on the basis of his political opinion) for 

asylum and withholding of removal; the BIA and IJ failed, for the purposes of 

CAT, to provide a “reasoned analysis” of the likelihood of his future torture

in India; and the IJ inappropriately assumed Singh could be relocated within 

India. His claims fail.

We review the BIA’s decision, and that of the IJ insofar as it 

influenced the BIA. E.g., Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo; factual findings, for substantial 

evidence. Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates, 846 F.3d 806, 810 (5th Cir. 2017). 

Substantial evidence requires the decision be based on the evidence 

presented and be substantially reasonable. Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 

411 (5th Cir. 2013). 

Regarding the credibility issue, an adverse credibility determination is 

a factual finding. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 2018). In 

making a credibility determination, an IJ may consider, inter alia, the internal 

inconsistencies of an asylum applicant’s or witness’ testimony. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). An IJ “may rely on any inconsistency or omission in 

making an adverse credibility determination as long as the totality of the 

circumstances establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible”. Wang, 

569 F.3d at 538 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We defer to 

the BIA’s factual findings “unless the evidence is so compelling that no 

reasonable fact finder could fail to find otherwise”. Id. (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on 

the IJ’s finding numerous omissions and inconsistencies in Singh’s 

testimony. Singh concedes, inter alia: he did not mention in his testimony 

that his mother accompanied him when he reported his first beating by 

Case: 20-60438 Document: 00515764822 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2021
No. 20-60438

3

members of the Congress Party; he testified he saw different doctors 

following two attacks on him by Congress Party members, but he submitted

two medical letters signed by the same doctor; and he gave inconsistent 

testimony regarding the timing of his departure from India. Nonetheless, 

Singh maintains the IJ improperly: based its adverse credibility

determination on trivial inconsistencies and mistakes about minor details; 

engaged in unwarranted speculation by concluding the medical letters were 

fraudulent; and failed to give him the opportunity to address any perceived 

problems in his testimony. 

The record does not compel a determination Singh was credible. See 

Id. at 538–40. The IJ properly considered the inconsistencies in Singh’s 

testimony and, accordingly, its adverse credibility determination is supported 

by substantial evidence. Contrary to Singh’s claim—and as the BIA 

determined—the IJ did not expressly find the medical letters were 

fraudulent. Regardless, the IJ’s concern about the veracity of the letters was 

substantially reasonable given a report in the record. See Chen v. Gonzales, 

470 F.3d 1131, 1142 (5th Cir. 2006) (referencing a Country Report in the 

record in evaluating the substantial reasonableness of the IJ’s determination). 

Further, the IJ is not required to give an applicant the opportunity to 

explain inconsistencies before reaching an adverse credibility determination. 

See Alvarado-Rivas v. Holder, 547 F. App’x 630, 631 (5th Cir. 2013) (rejecting 

request to “impose a rule that an immigration judge must give an applicant 

an opportunity to explain any perceived discrepancies before making an 

adverse credibility determination”); Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 n.7 

(5th Cir. 2006) (recognizing unpublished opinions issued after 1 January 1996 

are not controlling precedent but may be considered persuasive authority).

Singh’s challenge to the denial of protection under CAT similarly 

fails. Insofar as he claims the IJ and the BIA erred by failing to provide a 

Case: 20-60438 Document: 00515764822 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/03/2021
No. 20-60438

4

sufficiently “reasoned analysis” of his CAT claim, the issue is unexhausted; 

therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). To

the extent Singh challenges the BIA’s conclusion that the IJ’s adverse 

credibility determination was dispositive of his CAT claim, he does not show 

error. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 659 (5th Cir. 2012) (“[B]ecause the

same lack of evidence [from defendant’s asylum and withholding of removal 

claims] means that [defendant] cannot show he will be tortured, he is not 

entitled to relief under the CAT”).

Regarding internal-relocation claim, Singh asserts: the IJ engaged in 

improper speculation in determining the Congress Party would not pursue 

him were he to relocate within India; and the matter should be remanded for 

a more thorough examination of the issue. The IJ, however, did not make a 

merits determination on the internal-relocation issue; rather, in the course of 

explaining the adverse credibility determination, the IJ merely discussed the 

implausibility of Singh’s testimony that the Congress Party would track him 

throughout India. Obviously, because the internal-relocation issue is not 

relevant, it need not be reviewed. See Bianchini v. Humble Pipe Line Co., 480 

F.2d 251, 255 (5th Cir. 1973) (“[W]e need not address that issue because we 

find that [it] has no relevance to this appeal”).

DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.

Case: 20-60438 Document: 00515764822 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/03/2021