### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 60850 Summary Calendar

JASHANPREET SINGH , Petitioner ,

v ersus MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting U.S. Attorney General , Respondent

.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A 209 939 650

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Jashanpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petition s for review of

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 16, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-60850 Document: 00514797033 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2019N o. 17

- 60850

2 an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( “ BIA ” ) upholding the denia l of his application for asylum , withholding of removal , and protection under the Convention Against Torture ( “CAT”)

. Singh, a member of the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar Mann Party ( “ Mann Party ” ) , claimed that he was slapped and threatened by three members of the Bharatiya Janata Party ( “ BJP ” ) in Decem

ber 2015 and was beaten by four BJP members in April 2016 for five or six minutes . One of the attackers in the April 2016 incident also displayed a pistol, which caused Singh to fear for his life. Singh contends that the BIA erred in finding that he failed to establish past persecution based on the December 2015 a nd April 2016 incidents. The BIA’s determination that an alien is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard , Chen v. Gon

zales , 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006) , under which we will uphold the decision unless the evidence compe ls a contrary conclusion. Id. According to Singh ’s testimony, the December 2015 incident did not require medical treatment and was not serious enough to warrant a police report . Singh’s injuries from the April 2016 inc ident did not require hospit al

ization and were treated merely with pain medication , an ointment from the village doctor, a nd rest for about a week

. Extreme conduct is required for harm to qualify as persecution. Majd v. Gonzales , 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006)

. The evidence does not compel the conclusion that Singh suffered mistreatment rising to the level of persecution. See id. ; Eduard v. Ashcroft , 379 F.3d 182, 187− 8 8 (5th Cir. 2004)

. Singh challenges the BIA’s finding that he did not have a well

- founded fear of future persecution because he could safely and reasonably relocate to another part of India. Singh’s bare assertion that the BJP controlled all of India as the country’s ruling party is insufficient to demonstrate that the gov

- Case: 17-60850 Document: 00514797033 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/16/2019N o. 17

- 60850

3 ern ment was the persecutor or sponsored the persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(3)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(3)(i). Accordingly, Singh had the burden of showing that internal relocation was unreasonable. See Lopez

- Gomez v. Ashcroft , 263 F.3d 442, 445

− 46 (5th Cir. 2001).
The evi dence indicates that Singh was a low

- ran king member of the Mann Party and was not harmed or threatened after he began living with his
aunts about twenty

- five kilometers from his ho us e. Though he testified that he remained in hidin g during the three or four months he lived with his aunts before departing India, he gave no indication that BJP members ever searched for him or conveyed any threats against him after he moved from his ho us e
. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s deter mination that Singh could safely and reasonably relocate within India. See Lopez

- Gomez , 263 F.3d at 446

. For the first time here, Singh contends that he can establish a well

founded fear of future persecution because he intends to lead the Mann Party
aga inst the BJP, a course of conduct that would pla ce him at risk of persecu

tion . Because Singh did not present th at argument before the BIA, it is un exhausted , so we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Ramos

- Torres v. Holder , 637 F.3d 544, 547 (5th Cir. 2011). Given that Singh has not met his burden concerning eligibility for asy

lum, he also has not satisfied the more demanding showing required for with

holding of removal. See Chen , 470 F.3d at 1138. Furthermore, Singh has aban

doned the issue of protection under the CAT, as he does not address the BIA’s determination that he waived the issue by failing to contest it meaningfully before the BIA. See Singh v. Sessions , 898 F.3d 518, 521 (5th Cir. 2018)

. Singh seeks remand for consideration of new evidence and claims of in

effective assistance of counsel th at he raises for the first time in this court

. Case: 17-60850 Document: 00514797033 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/16/2019N o. 17

- 60850

4 Those matters are unexhausted and thus jurisdictionally barred from review

. See § 1252(d)(1); Rui Yang v. Holder , 664 F.3d 580, 588 (5th Cir. 2011); Goon

su wan v. Ashcroft , 252 F.3d 383, 389

− 90 (5th Cir. 2001). Singh’s motion to file an out

- of

- time reply brief is GRANTED, and his petition for review is DENIED. Case: 17-60850 Document: 00514797033 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/16/2019