IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60325

Summary Calendar

JAI PURAN SINGH,

Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A095 320 945

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jai Puran Singh, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions this court for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing his 

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

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

Convention Against Torture. He argues that the BIA allowed the IJ to 

disregard the REAL ID Act when assessing the credibility of the Department 

* 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 24, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 15-60325 Document: 00513564104 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2016
No. 15-60325

of Homeland Security’s (DHS) witnesses. He also argues that the DHS’s 

evidence was hearsay, unreliable, and insufficient to establish his removability 

by clear and convincing evidence.

The IJ’s and BIA’s credibility determinations are substantially 

reasonable and supported by the record. As the BIA observed, the IJ was free 

to credit the testimony of Singh’s United States citizen ex-wife and the United 

States Citizenship and Immigration Service officers over that of Singh and his 

three children. See United States v. DeRose Indus., Inc., 519 F.2d 1066, 1067 

(5th Cir. 1975). Singh has failed to show that, under the totality of the 

circumstances, “the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable fact finder 

could fail to find otherwise.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 538 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Because the credible testimony and documentary evidence established that 

Singh entered into a fraudulent marriage with the intent to procure an 

immigration benefit and that he testified falsely in an attempt to secure United 

States citizenship, Singh has failed to show that the BIA erred in affirming the 

IJ’s determination that he was removable as charged. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i); Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).

Singh also contends that the IJ and BIA erred in applying the prior 

adverse credibility determination to his application for relief from removal. 

However, the denial of Singh’s application for relief from removal was not 

based solely on the prior adverse credibility determination. The IJ and BIA 

also found that Singh had failed to meet his burden for the requested relief 

because he did not offer oral testimony in support of his application. Singh has 

abandoned any challenge to the IJ’s and BIA’s alternative ruling by failing to 

address the issue in his petition for review. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 

830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

2

 Case: 15-60325 Document: 00513564104 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2016