IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60480

Summary Calendar

HARDEEP SINGH,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.; U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A205 973 984

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hardeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the 

denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

Against Torture (CAT). Singh admitted that he is removable, but he contends 

that, if he is removed to India, he will face persecution and torture because he 

is a Sikh who supports a Sikh political party. The immigration judge (IJ) 

presumed that Singh had experienced past persecution but found that the 

* 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

April 24, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-60480 Document: 00513019544 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2015
No. 14-60480

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had presented documentary 

evidence showing that Singh could avoid future persecution or torture by

relocating within India. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) agreed and 

dismissed Singh’s appeal.

First, Singh argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel 

under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), because he proceeded pro se 

before the IJ. He also argues that a remand is necessary to address the very 

recent changes in the country conditions in India. We can review a final order 

of removal only when “the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies 

available to the alien as of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). “Failure to exhaust 

an issue creates a jurisdictional bar as to that issue.” Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 

132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 324-25 (5th 

Cir. 2009). Because Singh did not raise either of these issues before the BIA, 

and because he does not establish an exemption from the exhaustion 

requirement, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See § 1252(d)(1); Roy, 389 

F.3d at 137; see also Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 383, 390 (5th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, these portions of Singh’s petition for review are dismissed for lack 

of jurisdiction.

Next, Singh argues that the BIA erred in determining that he had not 

established his eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 

protection. We review the factual determination that an alien is not eligible 

for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT under the 

substantial evidence standard. See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th 

Cir. 2006). It is the petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that the evidence 

compels a contrary conclusion. See Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th 

Cir. 2005). The IJ found that Singh could relocate within India to avoid the 

persons and harm he fears. The BIA concluded that the IJ’s findings were 

2

 Case: 14-60480 Document: 00513019544 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2015
No. 14-60480

supported by the record. Singh is not entitled to asylum because he fails to 

show that the evidence compels a finding that he has a “well-founded fear” of 

persecution. See Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411-13 (5th Cir. 2013). 

Accordingly, he cannot make the more difficult showing of an objective “clear 

probability” that he will be persecuted, as is required for withholding of 

removal. See Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006). With respect 

to the denial of relief under the CAT, Singh can avoid the likelihood of torture,

as well as persecution, by relocating within India. See id. at 595-96. Because 

Singh has failed to show that the evidence compels a ruling in his favor 

concerning asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT, see Zhang

v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005), this portion of his petition for 

review is denied. 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED in part 

and DENIED in part.

3

 Case: 14-60480 Document: 00513019544 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/24/2015